Slashdot Mirror

Or perhaps increase the standards in the science education at schools.

Unfortunately the Textbook League site have shutdown for some years now but when they where active they found tons of blatant errors in school science text books.

For those interested you should check out episode #52 of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe where they interviewed the Textbook League president, Bill Bennetta, while it was still active: https://www.theskepticsguide.o...

I've been listening to various podcasts for almost eight years now. A lot have come and gone, but my two long-time favorites are:

Escape Pod - Weekly short-form science fiction. These guys have been around since almost the beginning of podcasting. This is their sci-fi show. They also have horror (Pseudopod) and fantasy (Podcastle) among others.

StarShipSofa - Also weekly short-form sci-fi but more than just stories. This is an audio magazine with regular articles about science news (Delivered by a biology professor), genre history (Delivered by a history professor), interviews and more. It's part of the District of Wonders (Which also has horror, fantasy, and used to have pulp and crime before those shows withered away).

More recently I've been listening to these and getting a lot of interesting thought topics out of them.

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe - Skeptical thinking, science news of all types (Astro physics, biology, technology, etc), interviews, and more. This one usually runs a bit long.

You Are Not So Smart - Psychology deep dives into various topics (logical fallacies, changing people's minds, detecting bullshit, etc).

I very much enjoy the podcast genre even though it is a rather broad spectrum. Here are my faves:-

• The Adam Buxton Podcast
• Penn's Sunday School
• The Infinite Monkey Cage
• The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
• StarTalk Radio

Well here's where you lot run off the rails, because that's EXACTLY what it means. You don't get to judge something based on it's "potential" or how you can cast it in it's most positive light. No, you have to judge it in the real world based on what actually happens with it.

That's the absurdity. You make predatory patent practices and carcinogenic pesticides illegal if that's what you want illegal.

In the real world, GMOs have been used for things other than the above, and it has also been used for the above. It's like banning foreign purchases because sometimes people buy illegal drugs from other countries. Or if somebody has a skiing accident and breaks their arm, cut off their feet so they can't go skiing anymore (after all, you can't judge feet by their "potential", you have to judge them based on what happened in the real world, which was a broken arm).

These "science priests" are just pushing scientific hubris

What do those quotation marks mean in this context?

As long as it's the new shiny shiny then it's all good.

NO. Nobody is saying that. That's something you're making up. What you're saying is as long as it's new shiny shiny then it's all bad. Everybody else is saying to call bad things bad and good things good. You're saying that you saw a bad new thing once, therefore only bad can come of this and ever has come of this.

It's a bit funny to invoke hubris right after you dismissed a gaggle of nobel laureates as "science priests" who clearly don't know what you know (when I use the quotes, I'm quoting you).

So yeah... GMO means Roundup and patent abuse.

Roundup and patent abuse mean Roundup and patent abuse.

You can't even point to one positive use of GMOs that isn't better accomplished by more conventional means.

First of all, that's a self-defeating point. If that's the only use of GMOs, then make moves to ban those points. You will effectively ban GMOs anyway, and you will get rid of this form of pushback. Some will still defend those specific points, and you can have your argument with them, but you completely eliminate the benefits of GMOs from the argument.

But anyway, one positive use is bio-fortification. You will surely point out that GMO isn't the only way to biofortify. Yep, but it is a way and in some contexts it is the most effective way. If you literally can't see one benefit of GMOs, you are the one with a bias about "new shiny shiny". Another is bioremediation. And another is completely opposite to what you said: reduced pesticide use (cite: http://www.theskepticsguide.or...).

Patents on GMOs wouldn't even work if GMOs didn't have a positive use that tempted farmers into growing the patented product...if you thought patent abuse was the problem, then banning patent abuse should automatically solve this issue, right?

The argument that GMOs are automatically always bad is only useful to you if you don't actually believe that GMOs are always bad and want them banned anyway. Otherwise you can just focus on the actually bad things.

Anti GMO is basically conspiracy theories. GMO leads to a lot less use of pesticides, and much higher yields:

http://www.theskepticsguide.or...

And roundup is not carcinogenic, Its the most used herbicide in the world for a reason:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SGU/c...

If you want to know more about the GMO, and why information about it is so very skewed, I can highly recommend listening to:

"The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast. They research and talk at length about GMO related topics all the time. They made me go from anti-GMO to the other other camp. Sav the movie Food Inc.before which had me rallied up real good, but now I know it is largely made up bullshit, at least the GMO parts in it.

" the power of the Holy Spirit is proof of God's existence"
prove the Holy Spirit is real? ah, you can't. Hence Blind Faith.

Read this, then return and apologies to us by naming all you logical fallacies:
http://www.theskepticsguide.or...

Evolution makes predictions.
BTW: Learn the difference between making up stories and science. There is nothing made up in the science of evolution.

" it's more like detective work.
So is all science.

"Fraud is in FACT not science" But scientist can commit fraud. And when you say, well when the scientist commits fraud isn't really doing science, you are falling into the Scottsman fallacy.

If you say: scientists don't commit afraid, and I say that scientist did, and you say well she's not doing science because she commited fraud. That's a Scottsman fallacy. You can do science AND lie about the results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No True Scotsman

This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”

and since you mentioned it:
Slippery Slope

This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.

Both from:
http://www.theskepticsguide.or...

Every post you make is stupid. usually an ad hom or strawman argument.

You can't seem to think, and hate everyone. You have no clue about how the government works, you never back up anything you say with actual data,.
You are just some little insignificant spec of a human being that can't think beyond rote emotion responses.
As evidence I present: http://slashdot.org/~The+Shootist

I pity you almost as much as I pity the people around you.

You should learn to think critical and evaluate your opinions based on data. Also, see a trained professional about your anger issue.

anyways, this is why this specif post show how stupid you can be:
http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/gps-module-for-high-altitude

What would you think if I said:
Balloon can be unmanned. Tea party, I'll bet, racists as well.

oh, and if you can crawl out of your cognitive bias long enough to think about.. anything, start learning these:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

note, at no time did I tell you to change your mind about anything, just have some intellectual honest and think about it.

To me there's definitely an underlying intellectual problem with believing, it's not a lack of intelligence just intellectual laziness. A visit to http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ isn't that difficult and having so many simple resources out there while still having billions believing is the height of intellectual laziness. Fear also plays a large role, fear of death or the unknown, it's nicer to block your ears and eyes and believe that no matter what happens you'll always be around and things will always get better. Remember you're special ;)

Wrong. Minority's and people in poverty get intimidated all the time. Billboards intimidate people in those areas.

And since there is almost 0(ZERO) voting fraud in the US, what other reason is there to put billboard in places that will intemedate voters into not voting? what is the purpose of Voter ID laws when 11% of the population doesn't have ID? Why are they also exclusively in dem voting areas?

voter fraud by state:
http://tinyurl.com/9e2q7lm

Let me know when thousands and thousands of people are dying when they vote. Until then, you are committing the Fallacy Fallacy.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

What you redefine as fair-share and loopholes, the rest of us call the law. They teach this at university too.
YOU DOPE!
The problem of teaching logical fallacies is mostly only liberal socialist democrats bother to learn them at our fine liberal socialist institutions. They are mainly used to justify arguments of forgiving student loan debt which was mostly accumulated at the local pub.
The rest of us have no problem with this method of argumentation.
oh, you mentioned straw man, I kind of got caught up in Ad hominem. - It's my favorite.

Really?

Because people of faith like to push their "morality" on others. Believe whatever the fuck you want, just don't tell me what kind of sex I can have in the privacy of my bedroom or what kind of contraception (like that asshole santorum wants to do) we can use. Don't tell two gay adults they can't get married. Don't try to inject non-scientific discourse into science classes to push your creationism agenda. I got into a huge argument with a bible thumper former co-worker a few years ago. While I ended up in a different field I was a bio undergrad so i know a little about the subject. What amazed me was how adamant this guy was about his anti-evolution views while his actual understanding of the theory wasn't even of a 5th grade level.

"What has my faith done to you? What reason do you have to hate it?" -- are you fucking serious? Maybe YOU'VE done nothing wrong. I know there are plenty of people that see and spread the good cherry picked message from religion, but organized religion is a serious problem as far as I'm concerned and is holding back humanity.

--
Check out my favorite podcast- The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

I agree with you about podcasts and audiobooks for cardio, though every now and then I do mix in some music. Anything you recommend? I've been digging The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Radiolab, and Sound Opinions.

Yes, it is. I don't think you know what Placebo means.
You have been completely hoodwinked by people who want your money, don't know what the term 'energy' means, and don't understand confirmation bias. AS well as a host of other issue.

Listen to this:
http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast10.mp3

Read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6839

in fact, you should probably read everything here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=4

If you know how to read studies, seriously most eople don't, then do research here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

If you don't understand what makes a proper study, who to use the, how to properly understand p value and apply the results then freaking learn. As a bonus learn to apply the finding in a Bayesian way.

Oh, and be sure to read this. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend you read this first:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

There is no effect above a placebo effect for any Chiropractic 'treatment'.

Part of the placebo effect is the person doing the test, or treatment. So Yes, chiropractors would claim there was an effect because they are inferring an effect where there is none.

"What placebo effect? I've read this many times and have never seen documented evidence for it in relation to Chiropractic! "

Clearly you haven't looked. There are volumes of good* data showing it has no effect above Placebo.

The site I list usually, if not always, have citation you can follow up on, as well as asked questions.

*Good as in well done. Double blinded, proper controls, and so on. Which is all In care about in a study.

before you make another post, I highly recommend you study up on there:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

your arguments make you look like a fool.

Hundreds of millions is not billions, and it's 31%* of the population. vegitarians for most of them means lacto vegetarian. Many also eat eggs.
Almost all restaurants of Non-vegetarian, vegetarian and lacto vegetarian dishes.

Of course, you ahve bothered to do an real research and just take someone else's ignorant view and parrot it.

I say shame on you sir, Shame on you.

*that would be about 300 million. A lot, but not even a majority. Of course your argument that 'they do it over there' means jack over shit.

Don't be a simpleton.

It's not binary.

Oh, and since I have your attention:

"Correlation doesn't imply Causation"

YES IT DOES. are you really that stupid?

now Correlation doesn't MEAN Causation.

By definition Correlation implies Causation.

Learn your logical fallacies before you spout off next time.
Here is a great start:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

For the lazy:
Confusing association with causation
This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation. Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.

go here:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

read up.
When you are done rewrite your post without logical fallacies...of wait, you wouldn't have a story.

"experiences have been consistent with police for more than 14 years."
When every one you meet is a douche bag, always remember the one commonality is you.

If you haven't already, Try reading "why people believe weird things" by michael shermer. Since reading this i'm convinced that there are no such things as ghosts, and that aliens aren't visiting the earth, whereas before i think i just adopted the attitude that the huge body of anecdotal evidence for both of them must indicate something, no smoke without fire, etc.

If you are interested in skepticism in general I can recommend the podcasts skeptoid, skepticality and the skeptics guide to the universe

The betty and barney hill episode of skeptoid is quite enlightening. There are quite a few UFO episodes.

The shermer book is essential reading.

Doctor* "random guy on /." to the rescue:
How much coffee do you drink? Coffee contracts the blood vessels in the brain, and as the body gets used to it, their relaxed state becomes more dilated. Dilated blood vessels in the brain gives splitting headaches, so if you drink a lot of coffee, you will get headaches at times when it is a long time since your last cup, e.g. in the morning. It is explained in more detail in this podcast under "your questions".

*I'm not actually a doctor, and this is not medical advice.

Now, for the big money, identify at least two logical fallacies that you committed, in your brief post (allowing some conceptual overlap between them, you should be able to find more than two, pretty easily.)
logical reasoning fallacies
top 20 logical fallacies

My current science heroes are all grass-roots enthusiasts like Brian Dunning, Phil Plait, Pamela Gay & Fraser Cain, The Skeptical Rogues, Derek & Swoopy and the like.

Listening to all those podcasts and recommending them to all my friends has brought an interest in science out from purely occuring inside my own head into being a regular dialogue with people I know. It also makes you feel like the human race is actually going somewhere, instead of the general impression you get from the mainstream media that we are perpetually circling a gory hate-filled drain.

And, of course my original inspiration that started me listening to all these podcasts, Micheal Shermer, whose book "Why People Believe Weird Things" should be given to every 13 year old as part of their school education.

If I had 500 quid to get to Las Vegas I would love to have gone to this. Defniately doing it next year.

I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.

Massimo Pigliucci made a similar point on one of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcasts; I believe it is this one. Basically, each side is allotted X minutes. The creationist, since they seem to be disinterested in actual research before formulating a question, will bring up Y number of objections to evolution. The advocate for evolution must then rebut each point if they want to be viewed as competent by the audience. As you pointed out, explaining why some creationist objection is worthless takes a bit of time because the real world is complicated. Explaining why the human eye is not an example of a miracle takes a while. So Pigliucci and the like have steadfastly refused to debate creationists since they thought that the creationists were being unfair.

The only solution that I have seen offered is that you need to be very discriminating in who you debate with. You need to pick people who have a history of a) playing fair and b) being genuinely insightful. This same process needs to occur in people's personal lives as well. We all have some friends where it is blatantly obvious that they are more concerned with defending their idea than approaching the truth. This requires a level of trust that can be rare, since you have to be willing to possibly a) be extremely wrong about something and b) say something that some would find offensive (regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong). These friends (and debaters) need a level of intellectual honesty that is rarely found, and which I think philosophy can help people achieve. They need to be able to take quite seriously the pros and cons of all their views, and any complex idea will have pros and cons. We all have many beliefs that we cannot sufficiently justify (What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman has columns by leading intellectuals discussing what they believe to be true but do not have adequate evidence for). We need to understand what those ideas are and be comfortable with challenges, but as I mentioned before, this requires a level of intellectual honesty that is rare.

From: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=519 by Steven Novella

Here is the real story, as best as I can infer from the information I am given, but I have a high degree of confidence in my interpretation. First, it is not plausible that the spider bite itself did anything to regenerate nerves or muscles or improve David Blancarte's neurological function. So what did happen. The story reports:

Ever since, David's been relying on his wheelchair to get around. Then the spider bite. A Brown Recluse sent him to the hospital, then to rehab for eight months.

It is always important to seperate out variables when considering cause and effect. There are at least three variables we are being presented - Blancarte was biten by a brown recluse (which is poisonous), then he was treated for his bite in the hospital, and then he spent eight months in rehab. Of those three variables, which one is most likely to have resulted in his ability to walk? My bet is on the eight months of rehab.

To understand this we must further separate out variables. Motor ability (like walking) results from two general categories of factors - neurological and functional. Neurological factors include things like how intact the spinal cord and nerves are, and is there any damage to specific parts of the brain. Functional factors include conditioning, training, and motivation. So the question we must always ask when someone makes an improvement in motor ability is: was their improvement neurological, functional, or both.

The story with a little less bullshit is here: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=519

You might have a problem with that. Because her current boyfriend, Jim Carrey, recently gave her anti-vaccine organization $50 MILLION. And if you don't believe that, look at the website for her anti-vaccine organization. There he is, with the madwoman and her little darling, in the top banner.

You're talking a guy who watches Mythbusters to ogle at the lovely sexy Kari with her red hair and vegetarianism.

And I listen to the Skeptics' guide to the Universe (http://www.theskepticsguide.org) to hear the voice of the sexy veggie hippie chick Rebecca.

What OS do you think I'm going to prefer? ;)

Ok, you're not buying it. What hypothosis do you ahve that fits the enoumous amount of data?

Here is a clue, study it, understand it and stop arguing from Personal Incredulity*

Which part of evolution do you ahve an issue with? Because it is a rock solid theory with mountains of evidence.

"Don't try to defend yourself by saying "but I didn't say anything about evolution" because that is your counter argument to the Creationist..."
Sine he didn't say that, how do you know that? Maybe he believes it was couched up from a giant space cat the magical bless new creatures every generation.

*see number 5:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

Goes through a lot of the news items, common logical fallacies, good interviews all with an entertaining cast.

It's very entertaining and a great way to sharpen those critical thinking skills.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

Try the weekly podcast from these guys. The main guy S. Novella (Chairman I guess) frequently shows in great and unambiguous detail how to deconstruct and deal with areas you need to be skeptical in/off. Creationism, Homeopathy, Fake Mecicine (Snake Oil), UFO's, Bigfoot etc. I've been listening for 5 months, since I got my Xmas iPod, and I've learnt a lot.

Bob

Subscribe to the "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" podcast.

> Of course atheism is a religion, it is a system of belief about the supernatural nature (or lack there of) of this universe. It's the null religion. Do you believe that zero is not a number? Or perhaps that a null pointer isn't a pointer at all? Come on now. If it isn't a relgion is it a taco? I think it fits the former definition better.

Let's count the logical fallacies in this little paragraph...

• Ad Hominem: You start by attacking the person, not the claim. Let's focus on the evidence and the weight of argument - the nature of the person isn't relevant
• False Premise: You claim atheism is a system of belief. It is not. It simply states in the absence of evidence, I have no faith. Much like most of us do not believe in invisible pink unicorns
• False Analogy: You claim that if I believe zero is a number then I must believe atheism is a religion. These two concepts are totally unrelated.
• False Dichotomy: You claim that atheism must fit one of two definitions that you have arbitrarily constructed to define what is religion and what is not.

With many thanks to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

don't let yourself be trapped inside the "real world" of yet another conspiracy theory. you might want read this and at least be open minded to the possibility that you are being misled by people who mean well, but are totally deluded.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=124

also this podcast has a good segment on it http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=113

YOu're 15, I;ll cutr you some slack.
It is a logical fallacy to say that 'everyone I know' has it, so it must be in demand. It's form of 'Tu quoque '

Here is a list of twenty that will help you with life:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

In fact, just familiarizing yourself with them will give you a leg up on slashdot almost immediatly. Until you really get to know them, then somethings people say on slashdot will just make you brain hurt.

It's called Pareidolia.

Try listening to SGU for more examples.

Conspiracy nuts always expand the conspiracy to support their preconceived notions. Even evidence to counter their theory will be twisted as supporting their moronic theory.

These are the type of people, that when a science magazines mention there name in a negative context will then say that they were 'published' in said paper. Misleading people into thinking they have a shred of credibility or two brain cells to rub together.

I highly suggest subscribing to the skeptics guide to the universe podcast.
Site:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/index2.asp

Randi's pretty cool. I've seen his lectures live a couple of times; very entertaining.
He contributes a segment to the SGU podcast each week.
The SGU rocks!
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

Actually, you are starting on the wrong side. In the words of Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Homeopathy needs to prove that it can work, contrary to all the scientific theory against it. There has not been a good scientific study that proved that a homeopathic have any affect. The only evidence homeopathic providers offer is anecdotal, which holds no actual weight as scientific evidence. Just because someone claims they got over a cold after taking a homeopathic 'cure' doesn't mean the 'cure' was what cured them. That is the logical fallacy of post-hoc ergo proctor-hoc (number 13 here).

True homeopathic cures dissolve some random chemical/herb/whatever in water, then continue to dilute it until there is none left. The providers claim that an "essence" is left, that water remembers what was in it, but if that were true we could drink regular tap water and be cured of diphtheria, and last I checked, diphtheria hadn't been cured...

actually they did. During the "Cultural Revolution" Mao declared birds responsible for crop damage and village cadres were soon fighting over who had exterminated the most birds. The following year and for a quite a few years after that, the crop damage from insects was fairly substantial. They gave that up and took on the challenge of small scale steel production - see previous sentence and replace "exterminated" for "produced" and "birds" for "useless slag". This resulted in no trees, which were used to fuel the smelting operations and virtually no iron pots, tools, utensils or bits off the nearest site of important cultural and scientific interest (easier to melt).
Other enlightened activities from the People's Paradise included the public humilation and beating of teachers and academics (those well known threats to the very fabric of society) in the streets.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who reads slashdot that a) the Chinese concept of government is a rather loose term and b) that regular news scraped from msnbc about Bhuddism, the Chinese and er.. religion is somewhat short of the mark as far as news for nerds goes. It should be common knowledge amongst this readership and if not shouldn't you be listening to the Skeptics podcast? http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ or even reading other material?

Oh, and I am surprised at the absence of a surfeit of comments mentioning how all of the vitriol here is counter to almost everything the present Dalai Lama has said on ... well everything really.

It's during the Fraser Cain and Pamela Gay interview segment.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podc astinfo.asp?pid=95