Episode #58

News Items

    Interview with Kimball Atwood, MD

    • Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD is an anesthesiologist and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, and an Associate Editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. He has been active in exposing the pseudoscientific practices and philosophies of naturopathy. He is also an advisor to Naturowatch, a website with scientific information about naturopathy (www.naturowatch.org/). He is also the Chairman of the Committee on the Quality of Medical Practice of the Massachusetts Medical Society.Articles by Dr. AtwoodNaturopathy: A Critical Appraisal: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465994On Considering Alternative Medicine: www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Government_Affairs29&CONTENTID=8695&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

    Archeological Conspiracies

    • I got into a discussion with my brother on the subject of strange archaeological finds. He made the statement that there are so many of these stories around that some ‘must be true’. At this point my critical thinking alarm went off and I told him that making a blanket statement like that was to be close minded to the possibility that these things have plausible explanations or are outright hoaxes. He seems to subscribe to the ‘evil scientists concealing the truth’ theory.Is there any good solid evidence of any of these stories being true? (i.e. modern artifacts found in solid rock, etc. ).Thanks,Chris HamptonUSA, Atlanta, GAGullible article on ‘out of place artifacts’ www.atlantisrising.com/issue5/ar5topten.html
    • To allLove the show, not much in the way of entertainment in Afghanistan so there is lots of time to think and listen to the 50 podcasts I stuck on my ipod. I think I am the first ever listener of your show during a mid-air refuel of a C-17. Add that one to your stats. 🙂 Keep up the good work and I look forward to future episodes (if I can ever download them).Captain M FormanSpecial Operations
    • Steve,On the last podcast you all were discussing the hypothesis for an abiogenic origin for petroleum. After a really good overview (from Perry, was it?) Rebecca mentioned that pseudoscience can invade any field, and that was the general consensus. I would quibble that abiogenic-originated petroleum is not a psedoscience.It may very well be wrong, but what is pseudoscience about that? It’s based on the very real evidence that some of the molecules in petroleum can be created without a biological component to the process. As one of you stated, it looks like the available and observable evidence would not support the amount of petroleum we see, and that largely the hypothesis doesn’t fit as well as the hypothesis (hence now probably theory) for the biological origin of petroleum.I suppose that conspiracy theories have surrounded it, so it trips the ‘pseudoscience trigger’ in you, but a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that does not require anything magical that happens to be disproven, is not pseudoscience. In fact, it’s the best kind of science, it’s a hypothesis that is testable (or at least disprovable through observation).Matt DickChicago

    Science or Fiction

    • Item #1 Science

      Oxford physicists propose resurrecting the ether to explain current mysteries about the structure of the cosmos

    • Item #2 Science

      Scientists have bred a strain of permanently happy mice to use in depression research.

    • Item #3 Fiction

      Researchers at the University of Montreal claim to have found the ‘God spot’ – the single location in the human brain responsible for religious belief.

    Skeptical Quote of the Week.