Skeptics Guide #1005

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe Skepticast #1005 October 9th 2024 Segment #1. Another Loch Ness Claim https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/sailor-finds-loch-ness-monster-on-ship-s-sonar/ar-AA1rHqJE Segment #2. News Items Nobel Prizes 2024 News Item #1 – Physiology or Medicine https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2024/press-release/ News Item #2 – Chemistry https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/press-release/ News Item #3 – Physics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/press-release/ News Item #4 – Fruit Fly Connectome https://theness.com/neurologicablog/fruit-fly-connectome-completed/ News Item #5 – Shroud of Turin https://www.christianpost.com/news/shroud-of-turin-stains-consistent-with-christs-torture-study.html Segment #3. Who’s That Noisy Segment #4. Your Questions and E-mails Question #1: Hydrogen Cartridges Saw this and thought of you... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/toyota-s-portable-hydrogen-cartridges-look-like-giant-aa-batteries-and-could-spell-the-end-of-lengthy-ev-charging/ar-AA1rY28d Segment #5. Name That Logical Fallacy I've been reading "The Art of Thinking Clearly" by Rolf Dobelli, and I came across something that (I think) is questionable. This book is a cumulation of chapters about logical fallacies and issues in clear thinking that is right up your alley (although there is a book about that topic I like better, something like The Questioner's Map to the World, or something like that.....). The chapter is about the "Neglect of Probability". He details evidence that people basically discount probabilities. Studies of telling people they have a 50% chance of getting an electric shock, those in the study have the same amount of anxiety and fear as those being told they have a 5% chance of getting the shock, and so on down to 0% (where people's anxiety finally becomes zero). My issue is with one of the examples that he uses (at least I believe it to be his own example). I want to quote the whole paragraph because I think it's important. "To test this, let's examine two methods of treating drinking water. Suppose a river has two equally large tributaries. One is treated using method A, which reduces the risk of dying from contaminated water from 5 percent to 2 percent. The other is treated using method B, which reduces the risk from 1 percent to 0 percent, that is, the threat is completely eliminated. So, method A or B? If you think like most people, you will opt for method B-which is silly because with measure A, 3 percent fewer people die, and with B, just 1 percent fewer. Method A is three times as good! This fallacy is called the 'zero-risk bias.'" It could be that I'm missing something here, but is this not a terrible example? First, I'll be clear this is a hypothetical thought experiment. Nothing in the world is actually this clear-cut, so let's set that aside for a second. I completely understand that method A reduces the risk by 3 percent, which is a bigger decrease than method B, which is a one percent decrease, but is it not better to end at 0% than 2%? Getting cut off.... Segment #6. 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. Item 1: A new study finds that adrenaline autoinjectors are not effective in preventing death due to allergic anaphylaxis. Item 2: A recent review finds that atmospheric mercury pollution has increased by 20% in North America from 2005 to 2020. Item 3: Researchers find evidence that persistent viral infection with SARS-CoV-2 following clinical COVID may be responsible for some cases of long COVID. Segment #7. Skeptical Quote of the Week "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." Albert Einstein


View on YouTube.