Episode 35 — Oceans

[admin 330]

Just because it's wintertime doesn't mean we can't break for a BEACH PARTY! And by "beach party" I mean a scientific discussion of the nature and existence of water with oceanographer Taylor Semingson. This episode is nuts, from shark attacks to methane farts to whale brains to Saturn's rings. Enjoy!

[Merick 28]

Hmm, Christmas just ended, Hanukkah is ongoing, New Year's is coming up. Maybe it will be an episode on giving gifts, or family, or resolutions. Let's go to the Earwolf site and see..."oceans". Alright then.

[mattman92ish 823]

This episode was hysterical! WELP I'm a blastronaut...

[LukeHENDERSON 3]

Did we ever actually hear any answers or discussion about oceans? That's nuts.

[jughead 189]

Catty whales.....thats all you need to know!

[Ted 1]

Holy moly this was a fantastic episode. Brilliant harmonies.

[syates59 120]

Oh, now I understand "that's nuts"! This was a great episode. I especially enjoy Kyle's riddles. I wish they would never end. Oh wait, they don't.

[ColinDenney 100]

http://www.theearwolftumblr.tumblr.com

[attachment=12332,324]

[Roy Ziegler 108]

David, you need to stop equating "I don't understand this" to "Humanity doesn't understand this and therefore God did it." The explanation the scientist gave for how water formed makes sense, you just need to have an understanding of chemistry for it to make sense to you. It's the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand what that person speaking Japanese is saying, therefore they are speaking gibberish."

`
Anyways, hilarious episode as always T+K+D. There's something special about the episodes with experts as guests, I think it's the yin yang between the informed noncomedian and three uninformed comedians, it creates an Abbot and Costello kind of back and forth that ends up being hilarious and silly as well as informative. I don't know of many podcasts that can manage to do both like that, except maybe Neil DeGrasse Tyson's podcast. By the way, you guys NEED to get NDT on the podcast, he can tell you "What's Nuts?" about the universe.

[JoeBaga 12]

 

 

[justin 38]

@Roy Ziegler

I shot them an email to explain that to them. David responded, and it seemed like he got offended that I brought it up and he wasn't open to learn about the logical mistakes he was making.
-
From: Justin
To: Professor Blastoff
So it seems David loves to say that if something isn't able to be explained that it's pointing to proof of a god. I wanted to let you guys know that this is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and it is very annoying to hear it time after time. Just a friendly heads up.
-
From: Professor Blastoff
To: Justin
i think the idea is more that it leads me to believe there might be a god. as much as there is a burden of proof needed to explain how water formed on earth, or just exactly how gravity works - there is also a burden of proof needed to prove that god doesn't exist.
david
-
From: Justin
To: Professor Blastoff
What you have just stated is also a logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). You're getting the burden of proof backwards.
-
From: Professor Blastoff
To: Justin
not exactly. i was saying there is a burden of proof required for other things than just god (gravity, water on earth, etc) and since you, unless you're a secret genius keeping all this sweet info to yourself, or the rest of earth's inhabitants don't seem to know have a concrete answer - it may lead to people saying either, "who knows?" or "maybe there is a god" in some cases. i guess i've done the latter more than you care for over the course of the podcast. in my defense, that is sort of the theme of the podcast.
-
From: Justin
To: Professor Blastoff
It is a logical fallacy, it's explained here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html (I don't know if you saw that link the first time). All you can really say is "who knows?" because nobody knows. Saying that it may be proof of a god makes as much sense as saying it may be proof of aliens. You're forming a theory based on lack of evidence. "Nobody knows what causes X, therefore X might be caused by god." That doesn't really make any sense, because nobody knows what causes X, so to draw a conclusion based on the lack of a conclusion is fallacious.

I don't have anything against any of you guys. I feel like you, doing a science/philosophy based podcast, would like to be as informative to the audience as possible. I just wanted to give you a heads up because I would hope you wouldn't want to misinform your audience or put them in a thought process that is illogical.
-
From: Professor Blastoff
To: Justin
i did see the link. thanks for passing it along. i never said there was proof of a god. certain times, a lack of evidence makes me lean toward thinking there may be one. i've never seen a quark, but it seems reasonable. is the burden of proof on science to produce a visual image of a quark and how it works? or should we just trust math? and if you were the size of a quark, what does the space around you look like? does it just continue getting infinitely smaller, never reaching an end? if people were to sit around a table and offer their thoughts on any of these questions, we would never condemn them for having thoughts deemed illogical. if there is not a known answer, saying a hypothesis is illogical seems silly. thinking the earth was round was at one point a logical fallacy.

we really do appreciate your input. we try to be somewhat informative, usually when we have guests, but more so we try to ask questions that listeners might enjoy hearing discussed. hope you are able to continue listening despite our constant assertions that christ is the almighty lord and savior.
-
From: Justin
To: Professor Blastoff
"certain times, a lack of evidence makes me lean toward thinking there may be one."

All I'm trying to do is let you know that drawing a conclusion (even if it's a possible one, hell, ANY conclusion is possible really) based on lack of evidence IS illogical. I would just hope you wouldn't want your audience forming that type of thought process.

Sorry for bringing it up as it seems I've offended you.

[avalonandon 0]

While the episode was hilarious as usual, I don't think that guy was an oceanographer. He didn't know anything about oceans at all. Where do waves come from? Didn't know. Also, I think that he said, or agreed, that the ocean vents are heated by methane. Seriously? Or that the creatures there ate the methane. They are volcanic vents and the bacteria there eat hydrogen sulfide and waves are caused by wind. I don't think you could be an oceanographer and not know these things. I think they got punked.

[tsemings 5]

I'm a Mechanical Engineer. I work in Oceanography, designing stuff that goes into the ocean. Sorry for not knowing much about the processes of the ocean and its Biology and Chemistry. Punked indeed. I still had a great time and think this is the best podcast around.

[Broccoli 1]

This episode is one of the funniest hours I've ever spent listening to anything. The guest was great, and really fit in with the gang. He did a great job of rolling with the humor. "What's Nuts" had me snorting out loud.

 

So, of course I sign up for the forums so I can come join in the fun, and I see a bunch of gripes about religion and the guest. Sweet.

[tsemings 5]

Thanks Broccoli!