Thu, 29 January 2009
Barry Williams Part Two - Ear Candling
0:00:00 Introduction - Richard Saunders & Stefan Sojka 0:04:00 Richard Saunders interviews Barry Williams from Australian Skeptics - part #2 0:11:08 Australia Day at Bondi Beach - Richard Saunders & Dr Rachael Dunlop 0:16:08 A Grain of Salt - With Eran Segev 0:25:50 Dr Rachie Reports With Dr Rachael Dunlop - EAR CANDLING 0:37:12 Vox Pop - EAR CANDLING 0:40:02 Atlantis Nexus Ear Candling Drip Wax Protector 0:42:15 The Round Up with Michael Wolloghan 0:48:22 THE THINK TANK - Richard Saunders, Dr Rachael Dunlop, Tiffany Day & Eran Segev Comments[14]
|
- Way too late for this, but Cody me old mate, I think you're confusing skepticsm with being a humorless tool...
Being skeptical doesn't require one to treat everything with seriousness. Call me crazy, but I say we ought to treat serious things with seriousness. Robbie Williams doesn't fall into this category for most I'd wager.
You'd better not listen to my podcast on fallacies - it'll make you really angry. I laugh at fart jokes and say that peple who make coments on teh interwebs wit typos do so becuase its difficlut to tpye one handed. - In a private email I congratulated Eran Segev for his Autism article, which I repeat here.
“Sir, As a father of an Autistic son (who is now 28), I must congratulate you for your Autism article, which in my humble opinion is the best and most succinct definition/description of the disorder I have seen in any media.”
I highly recommend this article as a sound introduction for any podcast listener who whish to get up to speed on Autism, and of course how the term is being hijacked.
- In reference to the whole candle thing I remember a novelty joke item from my youth. The alarm candle,
The basic item is a candle with a number of graduated marks on the side indicating burn time. Insert the candle into ones posterior. The depth of insertion should coincide with the time one wished to wake up.
Lay on your front, light candle go to sleep. You will be woken by a gentle burning sensation on your backside. When we say gentle we are unsure how gentle having flame applied to that part of the anatomy really is.
We don’t believe in harming any creature so there is no testing what so ever.
But we want the cash so why stop there? Let’s have the aroma therapy alarm candle to ensure restful sleep before the natural elemental wake up call.
I wish to offer my thanks for the energy and effort that is put into my weekly dose of sanity and giggles.
Ripples
(It\'s good to think the best of all people and not call names, yet sometimes when all the evidence is very persuasive you must accept a person is a twit) - Hi 4tune8chance,
Sorry but you have been beaten to the post by the Butt Candle! I blogged about this on the YAS blog a while back, check it out here http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2008/11/the-fight-for-the-most-absurd-woo-woo-heats-up/
The satirical, but authentic looking website is here http://buttcandle.com/. They are endorsed by Oprah of course!
Enjoy.
- Ok this ear candling thing, I can’t be the only one to think that ear candling is limiting itself by that rather restrictive label, I mean has it not occurred to anyone to call them orifice candles! If having two lit candles in ones ears aren’t enough to bring on a chuckle, what about a third arse candle.
- Hi Rachel - I agree with everything you've said.
Hi Kylie - Sorry, but your position is what I think I'll dub the 'indefensible position' fallacy - like that? That's where you can't argue the point, so you disect the argument.
To me, being a skeptic means that I look critically upon the beliefs of others. I might even call their beliefs stupid, vapid, idotic, or whatever. But I don't assign that to the person that *holds* the belief, I assign it to the belief itself. This is so central to my understanding of skepticism and so important to me, that when the podcast fails to uphold those same standards I get rather annoyed.
In a publication, the author, editor and publisher are all responsible for the content in some way. Yes, the segment was one person's opinion, but by choosing to include it there's an implicit endorsement. By use of the work 'Skeptic' in your site and podcast, you claim to (and honestly, you do) represent the community of Skeptics. That's why I made the generalisation (if clumsily) and though it *may be* a generalisation, and it may have been hastily written, this does not make it a 'hasty generaliSation' fallicy. It does make it my opinion, rather than fact though, which I'll readily concede!
So I would rather like to hear your opinion on whether or not the concept of Skepticism has scope to include assigning negative labels to the people who hold opposing views.
Cheers and thanks for the spirited response! - Hi Cody,
Don't tell anyone, but I actually like the shrill, vapid music of Robbie Williams and I'm on the podcast! I also really enjoy Michael's Round Up, since his segment alerts me to some of the weird stuff that Robbie (and others) get up to.
As Kylie mentioned, the interview with Jon Ronson was revealing as to the extent of Robbie's obsession. Who can't chuckle a little when you hear that he calls up the ladies of stately homes, which are allegedly haunted, to ask if he can come for tea, as a mechanism to explore the possibility.
I must say however, I have read Robbie's autobiography and that was vapid, but as an entertainer, he certainly excels.
Have you seen him on the doco that Stephen Fry did exploring depression /manic depression? (The secret life of a manic depressive - you can find the entire show on youtube). Interesting stuff.
Thanks for your comments.
Rachael - Fail! So much for being open minded when it comes to your own content. *Your podcast* .. segment or otherwise.. calls someone 'vapid' and yes, I'm saying that *you* by claiming to be a 'skeptic' podcast, do represent all of us. Not a stretch really. So you can name all the fallacies you like, but the facts stand.
- Cody, hello! Thanks for writing in with your concerns.
Are you trying for a 'Hasty generalization' fallacy in regards to Michael W's segment? That because one person in the show says it, it must reflect all of us?
First, what you heard was Michael W's view of Robbie Williams. It's his personal view and he's quite within his rights to express his personal opinion of someone's music and demeanor. It might not reflect your, it might not reflect mine. Which is why it's his segment. The same can be said of Dr Rachael's segment and Eran's.
To claim that it reflects _all_ of us is a incorrect. For example, you did listen to the previous episode, where I talked about Robbie Williams, with Jon Ronson, didn't you? There we discussed the many factors that came into play with his investigation of 'the possibility of alien life'. That Peter Andre appears to be investigating the same things with a less-than-skeptical attitude doesn't mean it can't be commented upon.
I hope that you do consider catching up with that episode and don't make statements about 'degrading us all' (slippery slope fallacy!!) and 'brandishing the title Skeptic' (argumentum ad populum!) in the future. ;)
By the way - the Young Australian Skeptics Podcast regularly features a segment on popular figures and their beliefs, if you are mostly interested in that. I would reserve my own views about them for their own site, personally. - Your podcast occasionally crossed from skepticism to cynicism. Apply skeptical analysis to this proposition: Robbie Williams is vapid and his music is shrill. Clean it up guys. Attack the futility of his alien pursuits (or more worryingly his apparent willingness to hang out with Peter Andre) but don't degrade us all with using personal attacks while brandishing the title "Skeptic".
Post your comment:
