Episode #64

News Items

    Interview with Stuart Vyse

    • Stuart Vyse is a professor of psychology at Connecticut College. He is the author of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition, (Oxford University Press, 1997) which has been published in Japanese and German and received the 1999 William James Book Award.

    Corrections

    • Just a comment on the show from 2 weeks ago, about the loris in the pants. Not to be pedantic, but I want The Skeptics Guide to maintain its biology street cred. Perry, a loris is not a monkey, but belongs in the prosimian group or clade along with the lemurs, pottos, and bushbabies. A clade is an evolutionary branch which includes all members on that branch and only members on that branch. The term ‘monkeys’ is an artificial grouping, not a clade, usually referring to new world monkeys and old world monkeys as a group and excluding the apes (orangs, chimps, gorillas, gibbons, and humans). The technical term is that the term ‘monkeys’ represents a paraphyletic grouping. Rebecca might respond that using the example of a loris versus a bird of paradise would be phylogenically like pitting a chimpanzee versus a Komodo dragon (I’m betting against the ‘monkey’ there!). The loris shares a relatively recent common ancestor with the other primates including chimps just as the Komodo dragon shares a relatively recent ancestor with the birds.Keep up the good work. Love the show!Joe WalshCote d’ivoireCorrect, here is a link: pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/links/nycticebusAs the self-appointed Resident Brazil Specialist, I must correct what was said in this latest podcast about the girl who cried pieces of glass. She absolutely wasn’t brazillian; she wasn’t even south american. With a little googling, I found out her name (Hasnah Mohamed Meselmani), and her nationality: she was Lebanese, and the case took place in 1996.GilneiFrom the Message BoardsAgain, correct: Although the story was original broke on Brazilian television, hence the confusion.www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n3_v21/ai_19524413
    • My children were taught in science that the amount of water on the earth is a constant and has been forever. It may change from being frozen, vapor in the form of clouds, or deep under ground, but there’s always the same amount of water (I presume measured by mass of water molecules?).I wondered when my kids informed me of this, and now I’m wondering again because my mother was at an ecology lecture where she was told the same and it amazed her so that she had to share it with me.My question: I believe that water vapor is a byproduct of certain combustions – like when hydrogen is burned as a fuel. Isn’t this using a chemical reaction to create water molecules where before there were only hydrogen and oxygen. On the other side of the equation, I believe I have heard of separating the hydrogen and oxygen atoms of water molecules to obtain oxygen.If water is a byproduct of a chemical reaction burning hydrogen, and we can separate water into it’s component elements, how can the amount of water on earth remain constant?Are the ecologists giving us bad information?Jon Giltner
    • I’m just flabbergasted and here’s why: tinyurl.com/qmukt and here’s the link to the folks who are selling land on the moon: me.moonestates.com/ Can this really be done? Can anybody really ‘own’ the moon or is this just some fun conversation piece to share with friends and nobody actually owns part of the moon?Scott Breitbach US/IASimilar scam – the international star registry:www.starregistry.com/

    Science or Fiction

    • Item #1 Science

      Research indicates that brief internet counseling is effective in the treatment of depression, as effective as traditional psychotherapies.

    • Item #2 Science

      Robot gardener – a robot designed at the university of Illinois, will move up and down the rows of a crop field, recognize weeds by sight, and then cut and spray them.

    • Item #3 Fiction

      Sony just announced plans to release a new version of their popular playstation that they claim can be played ‘hands free,’ with the use of the mind alone.

    Skeptical Quote of the Week.