The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe

 

Skepticast #41: May 3rd, 2006

 

Topics:

Segment #1. News Items: Bosnian pyramids, Toxic Cruise

Segment #2. Your E-mails: Bubble Universes, Iridology, Black holes, and the Origin of life

Segment #3. Name That Logical Fallacy

Segment #4. Discussion: The Scope of Skepticism

Segment #5. Science or Fiction

 

 

Segment #1. News Items

 

News Item #1 – Bosnian Pyramids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12402157/
 
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/osmanagic/
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4912040.stm
 
http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/WMmain.htm

 

News Item #2 – Toxic Cruises

Bob reports on his experience with toxins aboard a cruise ship

 

 

Segment #2. Your E-mails

 

E-mail #1 -  Bubble Universes

 

I Have A Couple Questions Which I Would Love To Hear You Guys Discuss.

Whats YOur View On Michio Kaku's View Of The Universe As A Mutliverse that we are nothing but a "bubble in a sea Of Bubbles"? If there is a so called mutliverse when did it begin, Im not speaking of  our universe because We all know the universe began with the big bang, but Lets say there is this mutliverse what is beyond a mutliverse and beyond whats beyond a mutliverse and etc.. you see its a paradox the only way to escape it is to say theres always been something somewhere literally for infinite and will be, so there is no end or beginning in the grand scheme of things(not our universe because we know one day it will end)

ANd If there is an infinite amount of universes or multiverse's theres an infinte amount of civilizations, but what michio kaku argues That most of the universes are dead because for example maybe one universe the atom is not stable or the stronger nuclear force makes suns burn out to quick and dna cannot form, but mayb in other universe its a completely different story with different particles and laws of nature maybe planets are square instead of spheres and everythings made up of completely different Everythings, other lifeforms can use up different types of Genetic code to survive and different Gases that we will never see in this universe...... I can go on and on so i was just hoping if you guys can discuss this and open up the minds of people Sorrry if its to long thanks!!! ;)

 

Elias Luna

Bronx,  NewYork

 

 

E-mail #2 -  Black Holes


Is there a limit to the amount of Mass that a Black Hole can consume? Why don't the super-massive black holes in the center of galaxies gobble up all the surrounding highly dense stars/gases etc.

Thanks

Dan Hansch

CA

 

 

E-mail#3 – Origin of Life


I've recently discovered your podcast and just got caught up to your most recent episode. I'm disappointed that now I have to wait for you to release a new one, but you guys put on a great show very interesting and entertaining.

In one of you podcast and in your article The Starchild Project you referred to a point that Carl Sagan made that said that it would be incredibly unlikely that human and alien DNA would be compatible because it would come from 2 completely different evolutionary genetic code seqences(I'm not really sure I'm using the correct terminology). I agree
with that line of thinking but it got me thinking about a related question that maybe you could shed some light on.


If I understand correctly we share a genetic code with every other known form of life on earth. Therefore we assume that an alien life form would have a genetic code from its planet of origin. What prevented multiple starting points for life on earth? I mean why is there only one set of genetic code, why on a planet as hospitible to life as earth wouldn't life have started from multiple Points? Why doesn't life spark even now to create a new random microbe with different code to start a new evolutionary chain?

I would like to know if scientest have attempted to answer this in the past and what the conclusions or theory's were. Without an answer to that question, and no evidence (That I have seen anyway) that shows that this has happened and the life died out, the likelyhood of life on other planets decreases dramatically, at least in my mind.

I'm not ready to go the creationist route, but without a good answer its really bugging me.

Thanks for your time,
Jeremy Freeman

Springfield, IL

 

 

E-mail#4 – Iridology

 

Please talk more about alternative medicine on your podcasts.  I know that's one of your primary interests and I am dying to learn more since I know so little about it.  I have a coworker who believes very strongly in diagnosing people's ailments by reading...
the iris of the eye (?)...I believe it is the iris, yes - iridology I think he calls it.  Do you know anything about that?  I had thyroid cancer and he told me he could "see" it a mile away in my eyes.  I thought he meant I looked sad or something and was stunned when he explained what he meant. Nice of him to tell me after the fact! :)

Thanks again,

Kim

 

Segment #3. Name That Logical Fallacy

 

WHAT WILL IT NOT SHOW?

Iridology will not show or name a specific disease but provides information about the body tissues which indicate tendencies toward conditions of "dis-ease", often before symptoms appear. Iridology will not reveal surgery performed under anesthesia as nerve impulses are discontinued. Iridology cannot locate parasites, gallstones, or germ life, but will indicate the presence of inflammation and toxic conditions which are a refuge for their development. It will not show pregnancy, as that is a normal function of the female body.

From: http://www.healingfeats.com/whatis.htm

 

 

Segment #4. Discussion: The Scope of Skepticism

 

We have received a few e-mails (see below) recently that touch upon the question of what is the scope of this podcast, and related to that, what is the scope of skepticism. So we thought we should discuss our philosophy on this topic.

 

 

I listened to a recent podcast in which you discussed science and religion and what separates the two. I believe "the paranormal" was also included in that discussion.

A point I would like to hear made about that, or the language I would like to hear used on it is: Science deals with things that can be measured because only measurable things are real. THERE IS NO MAGIC. I am so tired of the phrase: Theres a lot science cant explain. No there isnt. There is only a lot science hasnt explained.

If God is real and can answer prayers, or punish sinners, She must do so within the bounds of physics, so divine intervention should be measurable. Same goes for the paranormal; if ESP, telekinetics, remote viewing, and so on are real, then they work through the laws of physics, and can be measured and explained.
There is only physics and psychology. There is no magic.

Sincerely yours,
Curt Nelson

 

 

Message: Dear skeptics,

I'm a Dutch fan of your podcast. I've found your show very entertainig and enjoyable. It's always great to hear skeptics debunk the latest mumbo-jumbo claims made by the supernaturally inclined.

There is, however, one question I have for your panel as well as for most other skeptics I encounter on the Web:

Why do you limit yourselves to claims in the areas of the supernatural and the pseudoscientific?

It seems to me that there are many areas of public life that are just as much, if not more, in need of a critical, skeptical approach.

Two such areas that immediately spring to mind are politics and advertising. Both of these frequently employ rhetorical tricks, logical fallacies, and "common sense" to convince the gullible. What's more, both politicians and advertisers are far more powerful and far more effective than (most of) the woo-woo crowd.

You might argue that journalists are to be the critics of these groups, but as you have repeatedly shown, journalists often lack the skeptical skills to handle them.

Did you make a conscious choice to focus only on the supernatural and pseudoscientific issues, and if so, why? Please enlighten a fellow critical mind.

Thanks for your time and keep up the great podcast,

Mathijs Panhuijsen

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

 

 

Segment #5. Science or Fiction

Each week our host will come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine, one fictitious. He will challenge our panel of skeptics to sniff out the fake – and you can play along.

 

Theme for this week is common science misconceptions. One of the following statements is true, the other two are common misconceptions.

 

 

Item#1: Reentering spacecraft are heated primarily due to friction with the atmosphere.

 

Item #2: The sky is blue because air is blue

 

Item #3: The Earth’s magnetic poles lie just beneath the surface near the north and south geographic poles.

 

Answer:

 

Item #1: Fiction – Spacecraft are primarily heated by compressing the air in front of the craft, not through friction

Item #2: Science – just as with water, small amounts of air are clear but when looking through an ocean of air is it blue.

Item #3: Fiction – the magnetic poles actually lie deep within the earth’s core

 

From: http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#blu