{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"Skeptics Guide #994","description":"The Skeptic\u2019s Guide to the Universe Skepticast #994 July 24th 2024 Segment #1. What\u2019s the Word Calculus Segment #2. News Items News Item #1 \u2013 Water Harvesting https:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2024\/07\/240723182005.htm News Item #2 \u2013 Chimp Conversation Speed https:\/\/cosmosmagazine.com\/nature\/animals\/chimpanzees-gestures-speed\/ News Item #3 \u2013 Dark Oxygen https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2024\/07\/24\/nx-s1-5049587\/scientists-dark-oxygen-without-photosynthesis News Item #4 \u2013 Nuclear Clock https:\/\/www.iflscience.com\/we-just-took-a-step-closer-to-building-the-first-nuclear-clocks-69115 News Item #5 \u2013 New Creationism Poll https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/647594\/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx Segment #3. Who\u2019s That Noisy Segment #4. Name That Logical Fallacy Dr. Steve - You\u2019ve had emails conversations in the past with a Tim Dowling. That\u2019s my dad. \ud83d\ude42 Long time listener, first time writer. Thanks for all you do. You\u2019ve beee a big influence in my life and how I look at the world. But to the point. I had a big religious conversation with my sister this evening. Much of the discussion was about if God (evangelical Christian interpretation) is logical. She was back and forth, but eventually settled on God being logical. She then qualified that by saying, \u201cwe just don\u2019t always understand it.\u201d The example we were anchoring one was how God could be in control of everything yet let things happen that are not of his will. That sounds illogical to me. You\u2019re either in control of everything, and everything that happens is your will, or you aren\u2019t and it\u2019s not. But that\u2019s a discussion for another day. First question, but not the real one I\u2019m asking, what logical fallacy is \u201cwe just don\u2019t understand it?" Maybe moving the goal posts? Now for the real question. It seems to me that she is really just conflating the words \u201clogic\u201d and \u201creasons.\u201d I'm 100% happy with the statement \u201cwe just don\u2019t understand the reason God does things.\u201d But \u201cGod is logical, we just don\u2019t always understand it\u201d doesn\u2019t sit right. Isn\u2019t the very nature of logic knowable? If you don\u2019t follow someone\u2019s logic, it isn\u2019t because it\u2019s a mystery or unknowable. You just need more info to understand it. Granted, we can\u2019t ask God questions, but we can look at the Bible and get that knowledge - to a degree at least. I don\u2019t think my sister would say, \u201cwe can\u2019t know God\u2019s logic because there isn\u2019t enough information in the Bible.\u201d Bottom line - what is the nature of logic? Can it be unknowable? I know there is probably a lot of unstated baggage with this question. I\u2019m not trying to ask a religious question. For the record, I\u2019m a diest at best. And I don\u2019t find the Christian God terribly logical. Or if he is, it\u2019s not a logic I want any part of. Thanks! Tim. Segment #5. Your Questions and E-mails Hey gang, I really enjoyed episode 993 but I wanted to make a small correction to something that was said regarding piling up regolith on top of lunar habitats to protect from space radiation: "...if you made a protective structure on a moon base with two to three feet of mooncrete on the outside, that would go a long way towards protecting you from radiation." It turns out that when incoming radiation enters shielding around a habitat, it can react with atoms in the shielding and produce secondary radiation. The counter-intuitive thing is that this secondary radiation can actually be more penetrating and harmful to the occupants of the habitat than the original primary radiation. So in order to effectively shield a habitat, you don't just need sufficient shielding to stop incoming cosmic rays and what-not, but you also need enough shielding to shield against the spallation neutrons and other secondary nasties that the cosmic rays generate within the shielding. Some folks working on NASA's In Situ Resource Utilization efforts estimated that the *break-even* point for piled up lunar regolith (where the effective dose within the habitat was the same as if there were no habitat shielding at all) could be as high as 7-9 METERS of regolith. After that, your shielding starts to actually be effective. GO LAVA TUBES! Thanks for everything you do, -Mouser Nuclear Engineer, Los Alamos National Laboratory 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 \u2013 and you can play along. Theme: Item 1: A recent analysis finds that the teeth of Komodo dragons are coated with iron to help maintain their strength and cutting edge. Item 2: An extensive study finds that for about half of the sites analyzed, the cost per ton of carbon removal is lower when just letting the land naturally regenerate than planting trees. Item 3: A recent study finds that the ability to recognize a previously heard piece of music significantly decreases with age in older adults. Segment #7. Skeptical Quote of the Week "One of my biggest pet peeves is when people use science that they don't understand to try to justify their stupidity and hate.\u201d \u2015 Forrest Valkai","author_name":"The Skeptics Guide To The Universe","author_url":"https:\/\/www.theskepticsguide.org","html":"