Things I'm Wrong About

A look back correcting some of the facts and figures that Skeptoid has gotten wrong.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Feedback & Questions

Skeptoid #101
May 20, 2008
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
 

Now that there are 100 episodes of the Skeptoid podcast, I have had 100 chances to get something wrong. And I've succeeded, in many cases; getting the odd fact or figure wrong, saying something backwards, looking at a map upside down, or just being an idiot. And since I do try to follow the scientific method here, at least in as minimally abbreviated a way as practical in a 10-minute podcast, the responsible thing for me to do is to report corrections and improvements to the information presented.

I have to start with the one error that I got the most grief for. Skeptoid #31 was about the 1855 incident in Devon, England where a 100-mile long set of footprints was found in the snow one morning, ostensibly laid by the devil himself. Devon is a county in southwestern England. However, when I recorded the episode, I said southeastern England, even though I was literally staring at a map while I spoke the words. No idea why, just one of the unaccountable brain farts. Probably the E in England threw me and I said southeastern even as I was thinking southwestern. Anyway I must heard from a hundred listeners, many of whom said things like "If I did so little research that I didn't even know where Devon was, how could they trust the accuracy of anything else I said?"

But I also caught additional flak. Among the stories dating from 1855 were that the trail of footprints spanned a two-mile stretch of water at one point. Now, I had looked over Devon pretty thoroughly using Google Earth to get a sense of the terrain, having never been there myself, and I couldn't find any lakes or rivers that looked like they might possibly offer a two-mile stretch. Nevertheless, I repeated the claim as it was reported, and, as I should have expected, listeners blamed me for the error. "If I knew so little about Devon, how could they trust the accuracy of anything else I said?"

One newspaper report suggested raccoons among a list of possible culprits. There are no raccoons in England, but I was merely repeating the newspaper report. And, as before, listeners blamed me. "If I knew so little about the fauna in England, how could they trust the accuracy of anything else I said?"

I usually spend a few weeks researching each Skeptoid topic, split among several episodes at a time, until I have enough notes on one to expand it into a full episode. Once I have enough, I cut it off, trying to keep each episode to around 10 minutes or about 1500 words. Sometimes I have to leave out important information that I simply have to choose to cut. Sometimes I miss things because I have enough and need to stop researching. This is what happened in Skeptoid #40 when I addressed the question of Zana, the Russian 19th century wild woman suspected of being part Neanderthal. Most of this research was done online, bookmarking and digesting everything I could find on the topic. I reported in the episode that Zana's skull had never been found, only that of her son Khwit, and at the time, no DNA research had been done on it. Unbeknownst to me, five months before my episode, National Geographic aired an episode of Is It Real? where they actually did find Zana's skull, and did DNA tests on both of them. The results confirmed what I reported, that there was no non-human ancestry found in Zana or Khwit. I guess five months was not long enough for the info to propagate to the Internet very deeply. Anyway, this illustrates one risk of doing Internet research.

I did make a good solid error in my discussion of the Kinoki footpads in Skeptoid #83, the Detoxification Myth. Kinoki footpads are adhesive pads that you stick to the bottom of your feet, and they turn dark brown. Kinoki claims this coloration is caused by toxins that are sucked out of your body through your feet, which is of course medically impossible. In the episode I opined that they changed color because they are damp and adhesive, and this loosens and removes dead, dirty skin cells. In my research I missed the real reason. The active ingredient in Kinoki footpads is powdered wood vinegar. When it's dried, it forms a colorless powder. In its normal liquid state, it's dark brown or black. Contact with perspiration from your foot reconstitutes the acetic acid in the wood vinegar, and the dark liquid stains the pad. Presto, science in action, and no magical transport of mysterious "toxins" through non-permeable skin is needed to explain the effect.

There was also an error of omission in the detoxification episode that's caused me plenty of trouble. Alternative practitioners also sell pills that flush long rubbery snakes out of your bowels. They claim that these snakes are made of accumulated toxins, and that everyone has them inside them, and they call them mucoid plaque. In fact, the pills are what create these rubbery bowel castings, so it's no surprise that whenever you take such a "cleansing" pill your body will excrete a long rubbery snake. I described the process by which these pills create the castings. They contain primarily bentonite and psyllium, used to make mucilage polymer. These pills literally rubberize your bowel contents, which then comes out in one big piece. Well, apparently not all of these pills contain bentonite and psyllium, so I got a barrage of emails from believers calling me a liar and charging that I'm on the payroll of Big Pharma trying to keep people sick by making stuff up about these miraculous natural cleansing systems. My mistake. The other popular formulation in these pills is guar gum and pectin. Swallow some guar gum and pectin, and then see what comes out of your bowels. Guess what, it's a big rubbery snake.

Probably the biggest error I've made for which there's no excuse was my characterization of the carbon cycle when burning ethanol in Skeptoid #51. Per unit of volume, burning ethanol produces slightly less carbon than burning gasoline. No surprise, since it has lower energy content. Per calorie of energy, burning ethanol produces slightly more carbon dioxide than gasoline does, because you have to burn half again as much of it. But the alternative fuel people say that's OK, because (as they rightly point out) the ethanol came from corn or sugar or some other crop that took that carbon out of the air to begin with, so it's actually a zero sum gain. Although I omitted this obviously very important qualification, my point still stands. When you take the complete fuel cycle into account, including driving the International Harvesters and delivering the ethanol by truck since it can't go through pipelines, driving a car with ethanol still puts more fossil fuel derived carbon into the atmosphere than driving a gasoline car.

In Skeptoid #44 about remote viewing, I described how James Randi got two kids, Steve Shaw and Mike Edwards, to fool some researchers at Washington University into thinking they had psychic powers by doing simple magic tricks. I reported that Randi taught the tricks to Shaw and Edwards. Not correct. One day I got an email from Banachek, the stage name of Steve Shaw, now a successful stage mentalist, and all-around cool dude. Banachek informed me that he and Mike Edwards developed all their own deceptions to fool the researchers, Randi did not teach them the tricks. I enjoyed emailing with him, but had to break it off in disgust when he refused to divulge the secret of Penn & Teller's bullet catch trick, which Banachek himself devised for them.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Skeptoid #97 discussed the face on Mars, in which I stated that the latest highest resolution image came from the Mars Global Surveyor in 1991, with a resolution of six feet per pixel. I was informed that there is an even later and better picture, from the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) with a resolution of 30 centimeters per pixel, from April 2007. There is a link to that image on the transcript page for this episode. To me, the image looks exactly like the one I posted from Global Surveyor. Maybe it is, and maybe that constitutes a second error from the same episode. The harder I look, the worse it gets. Errors compounding errors. It's a wonder anyone ever listens to me anymore.

In Skeptoid #95 about self employment business opportunities, I glibly mentioned Starbuck's as a franchise company. It's the kind of thing that seemed so obvious that I never even thought twice about it, and so didn't even bother to verify it. And, due to Murphy's Law, that's just the occasion where you'll end up being wrong. Starbuck's is not a franchise, just a ridiculously successful company. This is actually kind of interesting, because of all the facts I've ever discussed on the show, this is one of the most obvious, and I got it wrong. A lot of facts are really obscure, and really hard to find: One example that springs to mind was when I searched the birth and death certificates for the Navajo Nation in search of the Hopi Indian named Little Chief Greenleaf. That was some obscure research. And yet what do I get wrong? Something obvious about Starbuck's.

If anything, this should underscore the advice I give all the time: Don't take my word for anything. When something comes from me, you can be assured that it was generally well researched. But, that doesn't make anything infallible. Words coming out of my mouth on a podcast constitute no better than anecdotal information. You can use this anecdotal information to suggest a direction for you to research further, if you're truly interested in a subject. But always assume that I could be wrong about anything. If you want to follow a truly skeptical process, you should find out the facts for yourself.

Brian Dunning

© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

DTB. "Devon Tourist Information." Visit Devon. The Devon Tourist Board, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2010. <http://www.visitdevon.co.uk/>

Ernst, E., Singh, S. Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine. London: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd, 2008.

Kelly, L. The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal. London: Allen & Unwin, 2004. 139-140.

Plait, P. Bad Astronomy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.

Starbucks. "Investor Relations FAQ." Starbucks.com. Starbucks Coffee Company, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 12 May. 2009. <http://www.starbucks.com/customer-service/faqs/investor-relations>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Things I'm Wrong About." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 20 May 2008. Web. 27 Nov 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4101>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 25 comments

"Brian keeps dismissing claims that something is toxic by saying it hasn't killed him or anyone."

Oh come now, everyone is allowed one pet logical fallacy, aren't they?

eric thorn, Seoul, ROK
June 22, 2008 12:59am

I listened to your podcast about running cars on hydrogen, and while I don't disagree with you that it takes more energy to break down the water than you get back burning it, (Stan Meyer claimed to break down water with less current than regular electrolisis, but I don't know if this is true) but what about what I have heard that cars only burn 50-70% of the gasoline because of inefficencies, but when you add HHO which ignites at a lower temperature and helps burn more of the gas in the cylinder at around 90-95%, that this will increase your gas mileage. Is there any truth to that statement?

Erik Kusk, Waterford, MI
July 11, 2008 5:19pm

I think it's pretty respectable that you broadcast these errors. It is important for us to remember that everyone is making mastikes sometimes and, even if we really really like and believe you, we should check facts before we repeat or believe them as such wholeheartedly.

Beth, Berlin, Germany
August 13, 2008 2:08am

Max. You have evidence that eating fish kills you?

(here we go again folks)

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney
October 15, 2010 6:33pm

Wow, way to miss the point, Henk.
My whole point was that some things are toxic even if they do NOT immediately kill you, and that includes eating too much tuna and smoking tobacco.
If Brian were a smoker, he could've said, "They also argue, strangely, that smoking is toxic. That's news to me; I smoke as much tobacco as anyone and I appear to be alive."

Max, Boston, MA
January 8, 2011 5:39pm

Max, I honestly didnt want to come back to skeptoid whilst I was busting my tail trying to denature this adolescent polluted apartment (you keep a chef 22 year old and you can see what I meant)

Max, You are essentially arguing your own strawman.

If you dont eat fish regularly you will die younger on average than those who do.

The fact that it has toxins is the straw man. EVERYTHING... EVERYTHING you ingest or breathe is toxic. Toxic enough to actually kill you if you do it again.

Man.. two cans of tuna wont kill you.. Two glasses of milk or two peanut buuter sandwiches, a snout full of grass two weeks running can and does kill. A game of football can kill..

Don't believe me? Be a registered first aid officer for a volutary organisation.

I take it Max.. you do not drive a vehicle.

If you do, could you list the number of deaths per day that supply your canned tuna habit versus you cadillac habit.

all the people who die at sea, all the people who die in processing plants, all the people who die opening cans (ok add can mining death tolls)

and then..

all the mining, fabrication and raod use of drivers..

Maxx and Foxx, I have a car but do not need one (its very old and ugly). I generally catch a train.

Tuna sandwiches on the train?.. GODLY!

Tuna gives life. Ostre Tunni!

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney, Australia
January 23, 2011 10:10am

How can I ever argue with myself.

With the price of flat head hitting $30 a kilo in Sydney... chicken is a very good option!

I've always asked myself about facts and google searches.

I've never answered myself. I am not that sort of nutter or man can I hold a grudge!

Henk v, Sydney Australia
August 1, 2011 7:54am

Tuna is indeed fine as far as mercury toxicity goes, if what I've read about selenium binding to and preventing absorption of mercury in fish is true.

But Max's point still stands. Yes, everything has something that is potentially toxic. But that doesn't refute the fact that some things have more toxins than others. A death from chronic poisoning is far worse than a death from violence or deadly poison. Quality of life plummets over a long period of time, and the pain must be endured for much longer. Accidents are somewhat random. But the risk of death from toxins in food is something we can control with relative ease.

I don't see two glasses of milk or two peanut butter sandwiches killing anyone, unless there's a severe allergy or they're used to suffocate someone. Those quick deaths aren't the achingly slow toxic death that Max was emphasizing in his posts.

The point of eating fish (at least, to the relatively uninformed public) is to get omega-3 fatty acids. As you should already know, fish are not the only source of these. Although they are probably the best source, we can still safely get by with omega-3's from land sources and live just as long. Considering the state of our oceans today, I'd rather stick to farmed fish or avoid fish completely.

Jonathan S., Toronto
October 12, 2011 3:07pm

You keep bringing up flubber site comment. Do you wish explanation where you went wrong in the above?

Or will you actually look it up on a proper site?

Muddie continued, sin city
October 26, 2011 4:40am

Just a note on consistency...

The mud beast is invariably boring when it comes to verifiability..

2011 is one ref point.

Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 9, 2013 12:56am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 

Newest
Griffins
Skeptoid #442, Nov 25 2014
Read | Listen (10:34)
 
The Skookum Cast
Skeptoid #441, Nov 18 2014
Read | Listen (12:30)
 
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Skeptoid #440, Nov 11 2014
Read | Listen (12:17)
 
A Skeptical Look at the News
Skeptoid #439, Nov 4 2014
Read | Listen (12:07)
 
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Skeptoid #438, Oct 28 2014
Read | Listen (11:56)
 
Newest
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#4 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#5 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#6 -
Hemp, Hearst, and Prohibition
Read | Listen
#7 -
Aromatherapy: Sniffing Essential Oils
Read | Listen
#8 -
Solving the Lead Masks of Vintem Hill
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.