Call in. Question everything.
#74 The Conspiracy Skeptic
August 27, 2010 · 4 Comments
We talk to Karl Mamer, host of The Conspiracy Skeptic, a podcast that examines the breathless claims and the actual evidence behind today’s most tenacious conspiracy theories.
Speaking Up:
Geneticist Josh Witten on what irrational beliefs can teach us about evolutionary theory.
Skeptic North Blogger Kim Hebert examines 21 studies claimed to support homeopathy.
Listen or Download This Episode
You can read the blog post that inspired Josh Witten’s Speaking Up on The Finch & Pea.
You can read Kim Hebert’s examination of all 21 of these studies at Skeptic North.
« #73 Transhumanism – Part 2 | #75 Nobel Prize Women in Science – Part 2 »
4 Comments so far
Records live Sunday at 6pm MT
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
For those who are interested, follow the links in the first paragraph of Skeptic North’s Bryce Wylde article. There is some history given about how we became interested in his claims.
His response has been interesting… He tweeted:
“No!, these are but SOME of my favorite papers: http://tinyurl.com/39fk7a6 Many more than 21! ;o) … Many more!”
For more information on homeopathy, see the UK Evidence Check which is more comprehensive than the 21 papers I covered.
by Kim Hebert · on August 29, 2010 at 10:13 am
If anyone wants to see the Righteous Indignation podcast conspiracy theory contest entry of mine that Desiree referred to, look for “We’re Not in Kansas Anymore” in the “Notes” section of my Facebook profile.
by Jameson Phoenix · on August 30, 2010 at 3:51 am
You were talking about conspiracy theories ..and then a few moments later you said the strength of what you call “Global Warming Denial” is due to a conspiracy.
- Surely there is a difference between acknowledging that for the last 30 years of the 20th Century temperature rose and saying that certain catastrophe is coming.
by Stew Green · on September 14, 2010 at 12:45 am
Hey Stew, I’m not fully clear on what you’re saying so let me clarify my point:
1) the vast consensus of climate experts believes AGW. There is, of course, disagreement about the confidence (90% likely? 70% likely?), what % of warming is attributed to human action, and the severity/consequences.
2) there are people who do not believe in AGW (and some think the world is warming but humans are not the cause or are a very very minor cause and there is little we can actually do about it).
In group 2 there are denialists. A denialist is generally defined as someone who cherry picks evidence, ignores contradictory evidence, when presented with contradictory evidence does not comment on it and continues making the original claims as if contradictory evidence has not been presented. Hence, the denial.
Some in group 2 claim group 1 has arrived at its consensus not via the data but via a conspiracy: they’re freezing out dissenting research, burying contradictory evidence, etc. all to keep themselves in nice paying jobs.
by karl · on September 18, 2010 at 5:40 am