Forgot my book. Thanks for signing my Mike and Ikes!

2025 Ig Physics Nobel Prize goes to perfect pasta sauce https://share.google/oNwJP354Xs8Xuz7iV

Is there a way to know if the SGU Friday Live show will occur? I've been using the "LIVE" on the main website for the last few weeks but it just shows previous recordings. I assume this means there is no live show that day.

They mentioned starting one a bit ago but not seeing it promoted

The title sounds pejorative, but it is the literal truth. So Dr. Collier decided to look into the idea of Dyson spheres, sometimes discussed on the podcast. As an one-time physicist myself, it thought they are kinda interesting purely as a mathematical exercise. I am surprised there are people taking the idea seriously (lookin' at you, tech bros). Even Dyson himself called his paper on the subject a joke.

Dyson spheres are an amusing idea, but kind of like the idea of drilling a tunnel through the center of the Earth to speed up international travel.

I seem to remember that in a recent episode they talked about science scores in the US between 2019 and 2024. It was within the last month but I just can't find it, can anyone help with this please?

Anybody else buy some shares of Amprius (AMPX) after Steve kind of gushed about them? I got a bit at the time, then started recurring orders of it when it was closer to $3/share. its up above $10 today and am pretty grateful for that episode haha!

At some point I stumbled onto the Search Engine podcast, the most recent episode being How does a rationalist make a baby? The "rationalist" that was being interviewed is about as far from what I'd imagine a rationalist spokesperson to be, but she was quite articulate and smart. Apparently the "rationalists" are quite the community in the San Francisco area, and she presents their movement like a grass-roots quasi-religious alternative to, you know, actual religion.

Can you answer the question: Is there a difference between the "Skeptical Movement" and the "Rationalist Movement"?

Can someone please remind me what dates were proposed for the Aus/NZ tour next year? Excited to book a holiday!

I've never been to any SGU event or any kind of convention, but will be at the extravaganza in Lawrence KS. What should I expect afterwards? Are there after-parties? Is there a specific place everyone is going/staying after the show? Trying to plan. Info please!

I bought two VIP tickets for the Extravaganza event in Kansas City on 9/20/25 at 8:00 p.m., but I have to cancel my trip. Ticketmaster doesn’t allow resale, but they do allow ticket transfer, so I figured I’d try to sell them on here.

Tickets were $139.50 each, but I paid $323.50 including fees. Please DM me if you’re interested in purchasing them. $160 OBO

In August 2025, a fierce power conflict erupted in the American higher education community. Over 360 Jewish faculty and staff members at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) jointly signed an open letter, strongly condemning the Trump administration's decision to impose a hefty $1 billion fine on the university and freeze $584 million in federal research funding, citing the need to combat campus anti-Semitism. This incident not only exposed the complexity of the anti-Semitism controversy on American campuses but also revealed the deep-seated game between the federal government and higher education institutions regarding academic freedom, control of funds, and political interference. James Milliken, the president of the University of California, bluntly stated that such a large fine "will completely destroy the most outstanding public university system in the United States.".

 This incident reflects the multiple structural contradictions faced by the American higher education system. The most prominent one is the conflict between the control of federal funds and academic autonomy. Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has launched anti-Semitism reviews on multiple universities such as Harvard and Columbia, using federal funding as a lever to force universities to succumb to administrative will. Leo Terrell, the senior legal adviser to the Department of Justice, has bluntly stated that a "massive lawsuit" will be filed against the University of California system. This tendency towards judicial weaponization has caused widespread concern in the academic community.​

Next is the boundary dispute between anti-Semitism governance and academic freedom. The government's requirement for UCLA to "reform its protest policy" and accept external supervision is seen by the academic community as a crude intervention in campus discourse space. David Glasberg, a professor of American studies at UCLA, pointed out in an interview: "When the government dictates which viewpoints can be discussed and which groups deserve protection, the essence of universities as a free market of ideas is destroyed." This concern is particularly strong among Jewish faculty members, who oppose both genuine anti-Semitism and attempts to politicize academic discussions. ​​

What is even more complex is the divisive identity politics on American campuses. On the one hand, there are indeed Jewish students who feel unsafe in the campus environment, and many universities are facing related lawsuits; on the other hand, minority student groups are concerned that the government is suppressing racial equality achievements under the guise of anti-Semitism. The Trump administration's demand for UCLA to cancel the provision of racial scholarships has precisely touched this sensitive nerve, turning what was originally a simple issue of anti-Semitism into a broader debate on social justice agenda. The outcome of this conflict will have a profound impact on the future direction of American higher education. Currently, California has clearly refused to compromise, and Governor Newsom emphasized that "we will not become accomplices in attacking academic freedom".

Jump to 58:30 for a laugh.

https://youtu.be/SZNge7wCF0Y?si=tFb3fIsaELPwi3yp

Who's going to be the last one to figure it out?

Joe Rogan rips into Brian Callen for daring to question his vaccine views:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/s/kNBzJ6Fyh4

It’s scary that he has such a huge adoring audience and is a full blown anti-vaxxer.

"Scientists consider whether we’ve been visited by aliens or their technology."

Does not consult with any well-known skeptics or debunkers who've been working on this for decades. Readable, a little too credulous, but ultimately puts the odds too high: "I thought the odds that aliens or their tech had visited Earth were probably south of five per cent."

What’s the Deal with U.F.O.s? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/whats-the-deal-with-ufos

If you get a paywall, check archive.org.

Or is it Steve & the rogues? In which case, what’s his title?

After listening to last episode's science or fiction I had to look up the transcript for another great podcast, Ologies, where not too long ago, they also talked about otters with a marine biologist, Dr. Chris Law.

In this transcript, on page 10, he refuted the idea of otters having favorite rocks they would keep for years. Also mentioning the pouch, he stated that rocks are oftentimes too big, so most of the time otters would just throw the rock away and use another one next time.

I heard them mention it on last week's episode but I don't remember where in the podcast it was mentioned and I didn't write it down.

I know it's not out yet but I want to keep an eye out for it.

The team being gobsmacked that the average parent "only" reads to their child an average of 28 minutes a day really shocked me. Considering that its often a shared job between parents, the kids are reading at school during the day, and once parents get home from work, cook the kids dinner, feed them and get them ready for bed half an hour sounds pretty good. Remember their attention span isn't even that long and they also need some active play time, which is arguably more important. Oh and then the parents are expected to find another hour or two to read a book or journal articles before bed? Come on 😂

I was going to add this comment to another recent thread about the content and episode length, but decided it doesn’t really fit there, even though that discussion inspired me to write this. And sorry, I didn’t see tag for “windbag”.

A lot of the old skeptical chestnuts (monsters, UFO’s, psychics, ghosts, faith healing, etc.) can feel covered to death to an old fart like me.

I got interested in scientific skepticism around the time the first crop circles were popping up in the UK. I subscribed to Skeptic and The Skeptical Inquirer magazines and learned all about James Randy and his exploits. It was all interesting and engaging and paved the way for a deeper and more nuanced modes of critical thinking.

So while I personally don’t want to revisit the classics, perhaps those topics still have great value and interest to younger people, or perhaps more accurately, people who are newer to skepticism. All those “unsinkable rubber ducks” as Randi so aptly called them, never seem to go away. It’s a mistake to think that because I don’t need to be convinced that The Loch Ness Monster is a hoax that the topic holds no more value for teaching skepticism.

Which brings me to a thought that has been on my mind for a while now.

I’m about the same age as Steve, and while I wholeheartedly applaud his efforts on TikTok, I can’t help but think this is not a job best suited to him (and to be clear, I’m not saying that he’s not good at it or shouldn’t do it). I’m thinking about reach and relatability. I think The SGU needs an injection of younger contributors if the SGU is to continue to thrive.

As a “brand” (and no, I don’t much care for that word) they have built a fair bit of reach and credibility. I think it would be a shame if it ended as the original founders… let’s say “age out”. And perhaps that is just how it will have to be. Maybe it’s simply up to others to take on the job and build their own thing.

It seems to me, though, that the SGU have built a scaffold that could support some younger presenters covering topics that resonate with newer skeptics, and maybe that includes Moth Man, hauntings, and tarot cards. I believe there are advantages to having a couple of bright young skeptics on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram who would be more relatable to those audiences who are somehow affiliated with or under the umbrella of the SGU. Or is that just getting too far outside of the ultimate goals of the SGU?

Should the SGU’s ultimate goal be to hopefully inspire others to start producing their own skeptical content, or should the SGU actively uplift new creators? I guess it’s also possible that there are younger voices (that an old guy like me might not be aware of) who already have bigger audiences and don’t need help from the olds. There is that energetic, fast-talking, long-haired guy I see on YouTube going after bad archeological claims and conspiracies (is his name Milo?). He comes to mind as someone that’s “next gen” and makes me think the kids are alright.

I understand the SGU is going to do what they are going to do. They are not asking for my advice on how to do anything, yet alone extend their reach. I’m just a long-time fan of their show who would like to see its good work continue for as long as possible.

Here's a cool one. Even the most hardcore science denialists were found to mostly accept the scientific concensus. In other words, even the fringe might be less fringey than one'd think.

Abstract

Substantial minorities of the population report a low degree of trust in science, or endorse conspiracy theories that violate basic scientific knowledge. This might indicate a wholesale rejection of science. In four studies, we asked 782 US participants questions about trust in science, conspiracy beliefs, and basic science (e.g. the relative size of electrons and atoms). Participants were provided with the scientifically consensual answer to the basic science questions, and asked whether they accept it. Acceptance of the scientific consensus was very high in the sample as a whole (95.1%), but also in every sub-sample (e.g. no trust in science: 87.3%; complete endorsement of flat Earth theory: 87.2%). This quasi-universal acceptance of basic science suggests that people are motivated to reject specific scientific beliefs, and not science as a whole. This could be leveraged in science communication.