|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
4th August 2010, 10:45 AM | #41 |
New Blood
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1
|
A few things that I would like to possibly see in a future episode:
1) CCSVI "liberation" treatment for MS 2) I know chiropractic has been done to death already, but I recently saw a bit on The Doctors about Upper Cervical Chiropractic. Is there anything to this? 3) A friend of mine recently sent me a link claiming that milk causes osteoporosis. To the best of my research abilities, all I could deduce is that excess protein may inhibit calcium absorption. But is there anything to the claim that excess calcium supplementation can lead to osteoporosis? And why do they single out milk itself? 4) A bit of a fluff piece, but might be kind of fun - "digital drugs". |
5th August 2010, 07:50 PM | #42 |
Waiting for the Worms
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,798
|
Big cat sightings in the UK.
A quick search of the BBC website gives plenty of examples (some with videos) of many "sightings" all over the UK. There was one local to me recently (Carmarthenshire) I'd like to know more on this phenemena. Kincraig Big Cat The Berkshire Beast Big Cats in Gloucestershire Dorset Big Cat Compus |
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit |
|
29th August 2010, 07:21 PM | #43 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1
|
Are our Cosmetics Killing Us?
I really enjoy Skeptoid, but as a skeptic, I find that most of the shows discuss myths that I can't imagine believing in the first place. I can usually detect the warning signs of pseudo-science and that is why my proposed topic interests me.
According to a popular website (Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database), many of the products that I use daily contain carcinogenic compounds or neuro-toxins. This website seems to be incredibly thorough. It breaks down each product into its chemical compounds and then describes the risk associated with each along with what tests were used to come to this conclusion. I'm still skeptical because I have trouble believing that these products could be released if they are unsafe, yet I don't have a sufficient scientific background to definitively say that they are safe. I would really appreciate it if someone with a better understanding of chemicals could look into this website for me and help me have an informed opinion on its validity. ~Lina Ps. I did not include a link to the website because I do not have that privilege yet. It should be an easy enough google search. |
29th August 2010, 07:51 PM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
That's a good suggestion as some of these places don't necessarily start off with the red flags (like hawking products).
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ One clue is to do a search for related topics already exposed as pseudoscience. Going to the Environmental Working Group and searching on "autism" finds a number of articles linking autism to mercury exposure, which suggests that it isn't valid. Another clue is the absence of HONcode certification. HONcode is a non-profit NGO set up to provide guidance as to which sites provide valid and reliable health information. http://www.hon.ch/ I also notice that their responses in the FAQ are quite misleading compared to the FDA website on cosmetic regulation, when it comes to giving the impression that cosmetics are unregulated. http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Guidanc...on/default.htm Linda |
29th August 2010, 08:13 PM | #45 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 470
|
A recent episode of "Pawn Stars" featured an old Geiger counter that could search for oil. Apparently oil is radioactive? And caused Gulf War Syndrome?
The science is beyond my understanding, but if oil is radioactive (which to me just translates into "bad mutagen") then is there any possibility that exposure to this radioactive oil is contributing to what people call Gulf War Syndrome? Seems like an interesting idea for a show. |
30th August 2010, 12:50 PM | #46 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,140
|
|
31st August 2010, 10:37 AM | #47 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
I'd like to see an episode about what the crazies got right. Sort of along the lines of "What I Got Wrong", only in reverse.
This could go two ways. First, conspiracy theorists/Creationists/that sort of people who have made significant contributions to our understanding of X. There have been some. Second, ideas that looked crazy at the time (continental drift, for example). |
31st August 2010, 04:39 PM | #48 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 387
|
Someone got their wished fulfilled today.
I would like to see skeptoid tackle Black eyed kids Also go back to Crop circle jerks and do one about BLT's research |
2nd September 2010, 09:49 AM | #49 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 58
|
A look into the historical accuracy of the stories surrounding Jesus Christ.
I'd like to see this, simply because I find the amount of popular opinions and occasionally contradictory information in this regard quite a bit overwhelming. I often hear people claim that, whether anything else in the Bible is true or not, at least Jesus himself has been proven to have been a real person, but is this actually true, and if so, to what extent? Basically, I'd just like Mr. Dunning to weed through the baseless claims and the real historical research, and then sum it all up in a convenient little package, sparing me the effort. That'd be swell Aside from that, another episode on medical myths in popular culture would be fantastic. I really enjoyed the previous two. |
6th September 2010, 07:15 PM | #50 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,140
|
Brian, considering your interest in music, I hope you might like this idea:
Psychotropic acoustics, the alleged technology to incite profound biological or psychological responses--or even illnesses--within unwitting subjects solely through the use of artificially-generated sound waves. There's no doubt that music has profound emotional and psychological effects, but what about barely detectable or undetectable low-level noises? The "Feraliminal Lycanthropizer" is said to have been an device developed by the Nazis during the late years of WWII. It is said to have employed sine waves of varying frequencies, along with a combination of recorded animal and human vocalizations, to induce a variety of gut-level responses in humans. It was supposedly intended as an aid in interrogations, and also had possible uses in motivating troops before going into battle. There have also been some stories of the Soviets using some sonic devices to bombard embassies and certain hotel rooms with low-frequency acoustic waves intended to cause physical and psychological discomfort in Western diplomats and ambassadors housed there. The "Disco Dump" (aka the "brown note" from South Park) is said to be a subsonic tone (often identified as being in the 5Hz range) amplified to extremely high volume, that causes subjects to involuntarily lose control of certain bodily functions like bowel movements. |
8th September 2010, 05:50 AM | #51 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
I'd like to see an episode on misconceptions about money, such as:
|
8th September 2010, 06:12 PM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Quote:
Secondly, banks must necessarily lend out a certain percentage of their income. They give their savings acounts a certain percentage (not much, but it's there). If there's no income other than more savings acounts it will eventually collaps under its own weight (it's akin to multilevel marketing). Not a lot of room to grow, at least in this country. So the other option is to have a pile of cash lying around. That'll run out ("If it goes out and doesn't come in, it's not there"). That leaves finding some sort of income. The only asset a bank has is cash. Well, a LOT of people want cash. They'll even pay you for it! Either banks are really, really, really stupid, or they make money from loaning money.
Quote:
|
9th September 2010, 05:34 AM | #53 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
Of course banks DO make money from loaning money. The misconception is that they lend out their depositors' money, which is not true. When a bank lends $1000 (say) to a customer, that customer receives a new bank deposit of $1000, which he can then withdraw and spend. Everyone else's deposits are untouched.
If you still believe that banks lend out their depositors' money to other customers, you will need to explain how their depositors' balances are unaffected when the bank advances loans.
Quote:
|
9th September 2010, 04:37 PM | #54 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Quote:
Quote:
The only evidence you've presented thus far for banks NOT lending out their depositer's deposits is that depositors can withdraw their funds at any time. I've dealt with that. Got any other evidence? |
9th September 2010, 05:10 PM | #55 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
No, my argument is that only the interest on the national debt needs to be paid off, so focusing on the size of the national debt itself (as some do) is pointless.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For the details on how banks lend money, you can refer to any decent textbook on economics, or do some googling. UPDATE: I've done some googling of my own, and discovered that decent, concise descriptions of how banks lend money are hard to come by. I'll keep looking, though. One economics textbook I can recommend is "Economics" by David Begg. I know it's unlikely you'll be able to get a copy, but the chapter on money and banking is pretty good. Finally, to show I'm not just pulling the idea that banks don't lend their depositors' money out of my posterior orifice, see the fourth item here: wfhummel.cnchost.com/misconceptions.html Actually, I recommend the whole website if the subject of money piques your interest. It's a very good collection of articles on money and how it works. |
9th September 2010, 08:17 PM | #56 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Quote:
As I said before, either the banks are sitting on a pile of cash (an infinite pile), or they're ponzi scheams. The other option is that they're counterfitting money like crazy. If you have information about such illegal activities, it is your obligation to inform the Secret Service.
Quote:
Quote:
Look, it's really simple. I take $100 from you (I'm the bank, you're the depositer). I invest $75 of your money into mortgages, personal loans, car loans, etc. at 15% APR. I give you 5% APR. I leave $25 in cash at the bank. At the end of the year, your account ballance is $105 and I pocket $10. I also re-invest the origian $75. So your account says $75 (the numbers on the paper don't magically disappear), but the money isn't technically in the account. If it's just you and me this sucks. If it's five million people and a thousand corporations ranging from mom-and-pop shops to multinational corporations, the $2000 I put in the bank is more than covered by what the bank has on hand. So they can safely invest the money in some short-term loans, and if I pull my money out they have the cash on hand to handle it. This is what complicates the books--you've gotta keep track of a LOT of money changing hands. The other complication is that you have multiple types of accounts. A savings acount is very liquid, and therefore the funds aren't good to use for long-term investments--which means that the bank's not going to give you much. Money-market accounts are less liquid, and get a better interest rate by virtue of the better investments that can be made. CDs are better yet, and get better yet. But the basic concept is the same. Again, unless you wish to present evidence that banks are ponzi schemes, rappidly depleating, or criminals.
Quote:
Quote:
|
10th September 2010, 05:48 AM | #57 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
Verifying that depositors' balances don't change when a bank lends money is an erroneous way to confirm that banks do not lend their depositors' money? I have to raise an eyebrow at that.
Quote:
The problem with your narrow definition of money as "physical cash only" is that it leads to the absurd conclusion that if we moved to a completely cashless system - which is quite feasible - then there would be no "real" money at all, just numbers stored on the hard disks in banks. That's why I think it's reasonable to accept those numbers now in the definition of money: bank deposits already far outweigh physical cash in quantity, and are accepted as money (when we use cheques and debit cards, for example) in the same way as cash.
Quote:
|
10th September 2010, 01:13 PM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
Undoubtedly banks create money. When a bank lends money, that money can be deposited in other banks and can be the basis for those banks' loans, which can be the basis for other loans, etc., etc.
Here is a good article summarizing banking and "money mechanics": http://web.archive.org/web/200702112...oney/mmm2.html |
10th September 2010, 01:33 PM | #59 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
I agree, but as we've seen with my discussion with Dinwar, the statement is true only if you're careful to define "money" up front as at least including bank deposits. If that step is omitted, disbelief or disagreement may follow.
Don't most people regard bank deposits as a form of money, though? It would surprise me if they didn't, but I confess I've never done a survey. |
10th September 2010, 01:45 PM | #60 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
I agree that it depends how you define money, but in its most basic definition, as a medium of exchange and a store of value, I doubt most people would disagree that bank deposits are money (to quote from the article I linked to above: "Since $1 in currency and $1 in checkable deposits are freely convertible into each other and both can be used directly for expenditures, they are money in equal degree."). If you get into more formal definitions used by economists (M1, M2 and M3), all of these include types of bank accounts.
I think it's only when you very narrowly define money as currency (just a part of M1) that there may be some confusion. ETA: This graph may be helpful: http://dollardaze.org/blog/posts/005...oneySupply.png |
11th September 2010, 05:47 AM | #61 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
I've just noticed that Dinwar actually hit on the fundamental truth about money without realising it:
Originally Posted by Dinwar
|
11th September 2010, 01:09 PM | #62 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 347
|
This whole time, I've been under this impression:
Person A deposits $100 into a bank. Person B deposits $100 into a bank. There is now $200 available for the bank to use. Say the bank loans out $100, leaving $100 on hand. Doesn't this mean that while the records show $200 in deposits, there is physically only $100 in the bank? Is this not how banks generally operate? |
11th September 2010, 01:29 PM | #63 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
That's more or less it, yes. In more detail, assuming an empty bank to begin with:
Person A and Person B each have $100, making $200 in total. The money supply (bank deposits plus cash in circulation) is $200. Person A deposits $100 (in cash) into the bank. Now the bank has liabilities of $100 in deposits, and assets of $100 in cash. The money supply is still $200 ($100 in deposits, $100 cash in circulation). Person B deposits $100 (in cash) into the bank. Now the bank has liabilities of $200 in deposits, and assets of $200 in cash. The money supply is still $200 ($200 in deposits, no cash in circulation). The bank lends $100 to person C, who immediately withdraws it as cash. Now the bank has liabilities of $200 in deposits, and assets of $200 ($100 cash and a $100 loan). The money supply is now $300: $200 in deposits, and $100 in cash held by person C. The bank lent $100 to person C without touching A's and B's deposits (their money). In the process, it also expanded the money supply by $100 (the value of C's loan). |
12th September 2010, 06:18 PM | #64 |
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 177
|
I'd like to hear an episode of skeptoid about something alittle different than the normal type of topics. I'd like to hear one about... Rudy.
Rudy, the little wanna be Notre Dame football legend who currently makes millions in speaking tours on the back of his legend and a major motion picture... both of which are a bit inaccurate. Rudy didn't sack the QB, he got half a sack at best, and putting him in on the last play was NO BIG DEAL, it was typical of ND to try to get everyone a chance at the end, and The entire team DID NOT turn in their jerseys when the coach wouldn;t put Rudy in, that NEVER happened. Recently Joe Montana made some comments about Rudy being less than truthful, and I have heard Rudy dodge questions about the actual game events many times. I'd like to hear this urban legend torn apart. |
13th September 2010, 04:09 AM | #65 |
New Blood
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 24
|
An expose on the retarded claims of the American rightwing "birthers" against Obama in the US would be funny.
|
13th September 2010, 05:28 AM | #66 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
Hey, isn't this thread supposed to be about money and banking? Don't derail it.
I'd just like to add one more point to address in any "money misconceptions" episode that might happen. It's clear from the mention of "physical money" by Dinwar and AaronMHatch that some people think that money is cash, and cash only. So:
|
13th September 2010, 05:29 AM | #67 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
OK, I'll get back on track too.
Hypnotism: True or Woo? What is hypnotism? Does anyone really understand what it's supposed to be? Does it really create an "altered state of mind", or are the subjects of hypnotism just carried along and motivated by what they think is expected of them? Also, hynotherapy. Does it work? Does it treat anything effectively? If so, what can it treat? Are there any theories on how it works, and do they make sense? |
13th September 2010, 07:00 AM | #68 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
This is a good one. I've seen some tests where subjects are brought into deep hypnotic "trances" and later swear they weren't just playing along. Then again, I've heard Randi (at this year's Skeptic Track at DragonCon, for example), say that he's done a hypnotism act, and it is exactly that--subjects just pretending and helping the performer put on a good show. Apparently I am the non-hypnotizable (or non-playing along) type, so have no personal experience. I think it would be great to have Skeptoid shed some light on the subject.
BTW, Randi also said that on the other hand, hypnotherapy may have some merit for some people by allowing them to "play out" things, if I remember correctly. |
13th September 2010, 05:48 PM | #69 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Quote:
|
13th September 2010, 06:24 PM | #70 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
I think there is still some confusion, maybe by differences in how money is defined (and I am not sure how you define 'value' vs 'money'). It is a generally accepted economic idea that banks do create money, simply by lending. Take a look at the article I linked to above (originally from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and worth a read): http://web.archive.org/web/200702112...oney/mmm2.html
Quote:
The money that banks create (e.g., a loan I receive) is no less "real" than cash I may have in my pocket. Again, unless you define money as just physical currency. |
13th September 2010, 07:51 PM | #71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Value: 1) that which one feels is good, right, or important (BGSU student handbook).
2) That which one acts to gain or keep (Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology. Yeah, yeah, I know, Rand and all. But I like this one because it provides a method for determining someone else's values, which is often useful.) Money: A standard tool and unit of exchange. I'm not going to continue with the other argument. |
14th September 2010, 05:39 AM | #72 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
OK. In that case it seems that your definition of "money" coincides with what's usually called "base money", which is cash in bank vaults plus bank reserves held at the central bank. For sure, only the government or central bank is permitted to create base money.
If you agree with that, you might want to look at the article linked to in the thread I started here: forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=185511 It's an article that tries to explain money creation by banks as something else: a circulation of base money. To me it seems like a tortuous attempt - for ideological reasons, perhaps - to avoid accepting bank deposits as part of the money supply. I wonder if it would jibe with your apparently similar view of money, though. |
16th September 2010, 11:40 PM | #73 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 106
|
I would like to see an episode on the works of Charles Berlitz (his Bermuda Triangle and Atlantis stuff) and/or Erich von Däniken (the Swiss UFO wacko)
|
19th September 2010, 05:44 AM | #74 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
|
Some stuff I'd quite like to see discussed:
|
21st September 2010, 07:19 AM | #75 |
Student
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 31
|
Spontaneous human combustion
In many cases, the evidence that it is truly spontaneous is either scant or nonexistent, but it would be interesting to hear some theories on how people might be tricked into believing it's spontaneous. |
21st September 2010, 04:18 PM | #76 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Nobbit: I'm still curious as to how a bank can loan money it doesn't have (which is what necessarily must happen if the bank is creating money). However, I think there's at least one point you and I can agree on: This definitely would make a valuable contribution to the Skeptoid podcast library. Obviously it can generate a fair bit of discussion!
Quote:
|
22nd September 2010, 10:27 AM | #77 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,415
|
Quote:
|
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig |
|
22nd September 2010, 11:03 PM | #78 |
Student
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 45
|
Female ejaculation. Or spontaneous human combustion. Or both.
|
24th September 2010, 12:27 PM | #79 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
6th October 2010, 10:42 AM | #80 |
New Blood
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5
|
If humans evolved from "apes" as you say, then why are there still apes!? I find it hard to beleive anyone on this theory because of the lack of evidence. Just dimply saying "we both have apposable thumbs" isn't enough for me. And another thing, is it too hard to beleive that God created science. I am a christian and I believe in both science, and religeon.
In my veiw GOD CREATED SCIENCE! |
Thread Tools | |
|
|