SGU COMMUNITY Livestream // Friday December 15th 2023

(Add description here)
🪐 SUBSCRIBE / 🚀 LIKE / 👽 COMMENT
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
Website & Podcast: www.theskepticsguide.org/
Patreon: / skepticsguide
Facebook: / theskepticsguide
Instagram: / theskepticsguide
Twitter: / skepticsguide
TikTok: / skepticsguide
✉️ Send your questions to:
[e-mail]
Check out Our Books:
📘 The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
📙 The Skeptics’ Guide to the Future: What Yesterday’s Science and Science Fiction Tell Us About the World of Tomorrow
www.theskepticsguide.org/our-...
#SGU #SkepticsGuide #Science

[@haydn60]

The highly improbable solutions work because we're following the Enterprise. If Star Trek took place on a starship on which it didn't work and the ship blew up, we wouldn't have a show. It's like the anthropopic principle.

[@Ralf.Rutkat]

@williamrunner6718 It is a play on the Titel of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. In this book he postulates that it contains every knowledge one would need in order to travel around in the galaxy. Much in the same way, that "The Skeptics Guide" contains everything needed to find your way around (scientific) skepticism. If I remember correctly ;)

[@Aadchuz]

Crap, I missed it!

[@Aadchuz]

Is it just me btw or is there no chat available with this?

[@MichaelFoley64]

For Christmas movies, I do not know if any of you are aficionados of Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld but Hogfather is worth watching. You can backfill as necessary.

[@cylonred8902]

Chik-Fil-A is sooooo salty - like KFC. BUT - Chik-Fil-A has the drive thru down. Starbucks is good for adding flavors to coffee. A Latte with flavors - even strong flavors - you can still taste the coffee where normally - the coffee flavor gets washed out.

[@Aadchuz]

1:07:28 Little FYI Ian...Blackadder is not Python, he's Mr. Bean and Johnny English, but he was never part of Monty Python.🙄😇🤪

[@seanbradley2712]

Using estimated odds is a cheap way to heighten the drama. At the same time, giving odds means he/it is technically always right.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

Not REALLY; when each season has a dozen announced events of "incredibly low probability", which then seem to ALWAYS work out, that in a totality shows either clear miscalculation (by beings apparently well being those human mental limitations), or the first known experience of "luck" in the cosmos.... but maybe that's another ridiculous "technology" (ie: work- around for terrible writing) that the star fleet invented 😅

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

But yes, it heightens drama... what would work even BETTER, would be insight into REAL world outcomes... having those situations NOT work out positively in many of the cases, and jabbing the very humane reactions shown of having to cope w the loss after taking heavy risks and hard choices for things worth the effort. ... the medical field has examples of that very thing every day. Id day is better drama writing, and character building, to exemplify the ramifications of those decisions (rather than just keeping a steady staff of unaffordable "heros"). ... shows do it simply bc of the staffing issues, contracts, and the limitations to freedom of writing choice of "Hollywood" productions; but in ANY true and well written war time drama (or any of other MANY situations and employments that have high injury and death rates, shifting staff and losses are simply inevitable).

[@williamrunner6718]

Why is this show called TheSkepticsGuide?

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

It's a play on the book series "A hitch hikers guide to the universe".... admittedly a bit of a loose one : ) And yeah, I don't even think this "community" should be clinging to the term "skepticism"; in normal parlace, it doesn't really have positive connotations, any clear indication of the meaning of the "movement", or definable characteristic from every other "skeptical" person who is really just uninformed and drawn to beliefs that support their identity.... EVERYONE who doubts, even who established things, deems themselves skeptics. They try further specification with "scientific skepticism" but the general population doesn't even understand the meaning of "science", so that's another wash. I think "rationalism" is the most clear term for this system of belief; rather than ideals, identity, faith, or preference, the goal is to find the path forward to "truth" by rational assessment of available data.

[@seanbradley2712]

@@theoriginalmonstermaker I'm not keen on deniers abusing and tainting the term "skeptic" either. The problem with abandoning the word is two fold. First, looking at psychology, anytime a mental health diagnosis is renamed, society soon adopts it as a slur. So, if we jump to another term, deniers will soon follow if it becomes mainstream enough. The second is a more insidious problem. Right now, accelerationists are working to destabilize the world and force it into war, that way we can get on with the period of prosperity that follows. There are several billionaires who love war, since they will be unaffected. And since society equates money with intelligence, sycophants follow. Accelerationists work to control the narrative. They adopt terms and redefine them so that no one is working on the same definition. This builds trust amongst their followers and distrust with "others." It's one of the tactics of hypernormalization* . Then when a narrative can't be controlled, reality must be obfuscated so that people don't know what to believe. People like certainty, when it can't be had, anxiety and fear increase and distrust ensues. Hypocrisy is an incredible weapon that can be rationalized. (Hence, rationalism isn't the best word. I know what you mean, but when bad actors abuse it, they also abuse the principle of charity when we take someone at their word.) Critical thinking is a skill that must be developed, it does not just come naturally to us. (That's why I bring up the SGU's book** & podcast when opportunities arises.) We are highly influenced by emotion. Schools don't really teach critical thinking, not even in science. Philosophy might, but it is limited in scope. I think schools might be catching on, teaching kids how to be more media savvy, but public education, a pillar of democracy, has long been under a sustained assault. This has 3 effects: 1. Commodify education: this is an effective gatekeeping tool that ensures privilege and the privilege rise to the top. The thinking goes: Privilege must defended at all costs and not allowed to spread. The privilege fallacy, as I call it, goes like this: when privilege is reduced to a normal benefit, my advantage is taken away from me. This is demonstrated in The Incredibles when Syndrome say, "And when everyone's super ... no one will be." 2. Maintains control over what children are taught: Ideas are dangerous, subversive even, they can destroy the status quo. Cut off subversive thoughts at the source with Newspeak. Control education and you control minds. 3. Combat diversity: being exposed to people from different socioeconomic strata humanizes and normalizes "the other." When people don't fully comprehend the view point of others, they grow distrustful of them. This erodes empathy. * kzbin.info/www/bejne/faOahWNtjMt8nq8 - a long video, but well worth the watch. ** On Alan Alda's podcast, he ends by asking his guest what book influenced them them most. For me the The SGU's book is #1. #2 is The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.

[@JanetVJohnson]

Oh yikes. Is this a cult or something? (This is why I'm a lone skeptic.)

[@rudyd2313]

The occasional bonus unscripted live talks which started during the pandemic.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

I love you guys, but you're clearly SO biased by your youth experience of star trek; as someone who's never even seen an episode bf 2010, and had more gone back through MULTIPLE seasons and iterations of the show to attempt to see what you appreciate in it, it's terrible at almost every level : / It's not even good "character driven" story telling, and the complete failures of internal consistency in world building, or ANY evidence that they are hundreds of years in the future other than the COMPLETELY unrealistic ship that it takes place on, shows an INCREDIBLE lack of any writing quality or effort. It's practically unwatchable. I have about s thousand more complaints i could voice, but i doubt anyone wants to hear them : )

[@seanbradley2712]

It was a product of its day, for sure, but it was also innovative for various reasons, which takes precedence over the problems for those nostalgic for "the good ol' days.". There wasn't a "ST universe," so consistency wasn't an issue. Also, there were writer changes, studio politics, various Hollywood codes both stated and implied, censors to get past, and fear of lash back by society for challenging social norms (7 southern states boycotted the episode where Kirk kisses Uhura demanding an explanation - apparently kissing a black women is worse than sex with aliens). Then on top of all of this is MLKs endorsement and encouraging Nichelle Nichols to remain on the show.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

@seanbradley2712 all very understandable, but there's just SOOO much better TV to watch and discuss now... I guess I'm just not one for "nostalgia". Leave those things in the past.

[@seanbradley2712]

@@theoriginalmonstermaker I agree that there has been a lot of progress in both story telling, casting, and character development. However, nostalgia can be fun, as long as it's not pining for the return to the "original" ways. The real problem with nostalgia is when the studio turns a new show into a reunion, pushing the new cast out.