The Skeptics Guide #762 - Feb 15 2020 (Ad Free)
Added 2020-02-15 07:00:59 +0000 UTCLive from Melbourne; SGU 2035; Science or Fiction
Comments
I've been slowly catching up on older episodes while working from home and this episode was super confusing when you're only kind of paying attention. The nonchalant way that they were able to deliver the "history" of certain news items had me rewinding and replaying sections of the segments until I was so confused and uncertain of what they were talking about I had to go back and listen to it from the beginning. This was a really interesting idea for an episode and was really well executed. Great episode!
Austin
2020-05-21 23:22:45 +0000 UTCI absolutely loved this episode. I thought it was incredible how you made intelligent, insightful and, as always, witty remarks on a made-up history. Super impressive.
Daniel Zajic
2020-03-22 15:12:38 +0000 UTCEnjoyed this episode. Something a bit different as a one off.
Paulo
2020-03-07 03:27:10 +0000 UTCFawkin 'ell. Thank god you're here to point out fake news! How fortunate for us that you, you purchasing, loving, loyaling, patron, you are here to run the show. Praise Jeebus that someone is dutiful enough to point at these things. The hero this podcast needs. Never cancel your subscription! How else would we ever get to have this sort of contribution? I mean, with your enlightened education, your humble speculations, how would we ever be protected from fantasisim? How wonderful that a couple of thousand years of thought and development have you to point out when scepticism might be weakened. 'Phew!' says scepticism 'Whatever would happen without you here manning the ramparts?'. Damn, I wanna run into you at a party with your no doubt summer breeze breath, dangerously flashing eyes, and absolutely perfect hair. You sound like a ton of fun. Asshat. Sorry Steve and rogues, I get the impression that being kind and nice or not responding at all is your thing. But this kinda tone trolling, finger wagging, not mad just disappointed rubbishy bollocks I personally could not let go unresponded to. My views do not necessarily reflect those of SGU or those of its advertisers or other affiliates.
Jess Donovan
2020-03-03 03:26:16 +0000 UTCPeople understand the need to be “experimental” with shows and that it was this show or no show, but it doesn’t take away from the fact this show cringed a lot of people out.
Matthew Barber
2020-03-01 04:55:26 +0000 UTCLoved this show! Your improv skills are impressive. I especially appreciated how natural the banter was while staying in character.
Jamie Bruno
2020-02-23 01:46:47 +0000 UTCA bit taxing to keep up the act for so long, even in the listeners mind, but bravo for trying something new.
Jim Sky
2020-02-23 00:08:45 +0000 UTCI would have liked it better if you talked about how the Green New Deal was doing, especially under the leadership of President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (elected in 2028, re-elected in 2032).
Ted Apelt
2020-02-22 10:30:40 +0000 UTCMark me down on the "really liked it" side of the ledger. Thanks, Rogues!
Knight in DC
2020-02-19 04:03:40 +0000 UTCYou considered cancelling over this? Oh, come on.
Knight in DC
2020-02-19 04:00:31 +0000 UTCClever, creative, enjoyable, and thought-provoking. I would love to know your process--how did you decide to do this? did each of you write their part? how did you go about scripting the exchanges? The seemingly extemporaneous back-and-forth was amazing. How much of it WAS in fact extemporaneous? Since my husband and I are Steve's age, I hope that we're as sharp in 15 years and he will be :-) Love you guys and look forward to your coming to Chicago.
Svetbek
2020-02-18 16:50:09 +0000 UTCThis was a very thought provoking episode. I thought it was an entirely believable extrapolation and they carried it off extremely well. I can't understand any negative reaction outside of the fact that it was a little offbeat and unusual. Maybe people want a lot of "winking at camera" and hand holding? I was glad they played it straight and have the confidence to credit their audience with being able to handle something different. Anyway, relax. The real prediction (and joke) here was that in 15 years' time the show's format will be EXACTLY the same.
Jonathan Shacklock
2020-02-18 14:49:20 +0000 UTCI loved this departure from the norm! I was a little confused at first and didn't think they'd keep it up for the whole episode, so well done there!
Dean Valentine
2020-02-17 21:18:59 +0000 UTCIt astonishes me that an episode like this would shake the foundations of anyone's relationship with the SGU. I am in no way denying your experience or that you intensely disliked and disapproved of this format. I am expressing my inability to comprehend such an experience. Like what you like and spend your money as you see fit. I'm still astonished. I happened to love it.
Julian Sammy
2020-02-17 01:42:47 +0000 UTCThis is fair. It’s not for everyone. Actually being there was amazing as they tried to not break character and largely succeeded. But I did miss hearing about the latest stuff I’ll admit. Can’t wait for them to finish touring.
Mark Penney
2020-02-17 00:10:33 +0000 UTCIt’s awesome people are passionate. But the hyperbole isn’t warranted. So you didn’t like it. That’s subjective. Hundreds of episodes and one falls flat for you? I think that’s a pretty good ratio. I was there for this event. It was unexpected but awesome. I also enjoyed it as a break from their usual podcast this weekend even though I’d already heard it. They are doing amazing things for skepticism and science communication. AMAZING things. I think cutting them some slack and letting them be human is pretty reasonable.
Mark Penney
2020-02-17 00:08:46 +0000 UTCI think this episode would have been received better if it was posted on April 1st. I totally support you trying out new stuff. I was really slow at catching what was going on, so it made the start very confusing to me since it was so unexpected. But when I finally got the joke, I could start enjoying it. Kudos for going through with it, probably took a lot of work.
Viggo Tellefsen Wivestad
2020-02-16 23:42:35 +0000 UTCI agree "skepticism weakened" is over the top 😀. But I skipped to science or fiction once I realized the bit was gonna be the whole show. Looking forward to the regular show and the next experiment 😁
Arthur Thompson
2020-02-16 23:04:19 +0000 UTCPlease don’t do this format again
Matthew Barber
2020-02-16 22:34:19 +0000 UTCAs a French speaker I didn't get either, i looked around and end up finding how it is prononced.. Mthe full name is Heywood Jablome... Look around, you will get it lol.
Frederick Cossette
2020-02-16 21:38:39 +0000 UTCI loved it, didn’t get the joke about the emailer name though. Great to hear you are still doing Science or fiction and using the same jingles :) I am impressed that you kept the speed up, going back and forth and staying in your roles for so long. Great to have som “tounge in cheek” episodes ones and again. Thanks!!!
Sebastian Stureborg
2020-02-16 18:31:17 +0000 UTCFunny and awesome episode. Very good execution too. A interesting experiment. I wish I was in the audience lol.
Frederick Cossette
2020-02-16 16:48:01 +0000 UTCThe 2035 thing got really old really fast. I could not get past 20 mins
Arthur Thompson
2020-02-16 16:18:47 +0000 UTCSeems like an appreciation of satire is outside your wheelhouse too...
Lord Rancid
2020-02-16 11:34:00 +0000 UTC762nd show man. Cut them some slack. I was at this show live in Melbourne. It was thoroughly enjoyable both times I saw/listened to it. They experiment a little in the private live shows. Saying skepticism was weakened today seem rather dramatic 🤦♂️.
Damien Van Schyndel
2020-02-16 08:29:30 +0000 UTCI was very confused until I saw what you were doing.
Ted Apelt
2020-02-15 22:55:16 +0000 UTCFake news I appreciate the need to be experimental with the content, and to innovate in case you hit on something listeners love; but perhaps try out new formats as segments before you rework an entire show. I also appreciate the need to put shows in the bag for when you are all unavailable, and the problems this must create with continuity and content going out-of-date; but as a loyal long-time listener, a purchaser of your book (in hardback AND audio), supporter of events, and as a patreon, I feel it is my duty to point out when something isn’t working. For the first time today, I actually considered canceling my subscription. I seriously love you guys. You are my go-to resource for reason and rationality. More than anybody you have taught me “How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake”. I ‘religiously’ tune into your show weekly expecting to learn something new and factual about science topics outside of my wheelhouse. There’s a great satisfaction to be derived from being enlightened and educated. It’s also a lot of fun to speculate about the future, and we all can enjoy sci-fi for this very reason. But as good skeptics you guys must know how predicting the future is a fool’s game. I do not expect to receive such a heavy dose of fantasy from the SGU weekly show. There was no attempt to frame the episode for what it was, no disclaimer, nor was it aired on April 1st. There was nothing in the show I could use as ammunition in debates with climate-change-deniers, anti-vaxers, woo-lovers or religious zealots. They would all justifiably point at it as fake news. I struggled to listen to the whole thing, usually I’m hanging on your every word. Skepticism was weakened today. Please stick to your known proven formula. For fun, stuff like this can be tested as additional content on the patreon feed, not a full regular episode.
Richard Ireland
2020-02-15 21:39:54 +0000 UTCWell, this episode was certainly interesting. No one broke throughout the whole episode which was suprising. Very different, very creative. It was quite interesting to hear your 15 year future speculation. I definitely want to see Jay's hair through Bob's filter.
James Joyce
2020-02-15 20:10:50 +0000 UTCDidn’t enjoy this one. Sorry.
Deino
2020-02-15 15:14:08 +0000 UTC
