Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,604 Year: 4,861/9,624 Month: 209/427 Week: 19/103 Day: 8/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 31 of 115 (399660)
05-07-2007 9:14 AM


The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Last summer I loaded a number of science podcasts onto my iPod, and gradually I've winnowed many of them out for various reasons, usually because they were either too undetailed or put too much focus on being entertaining. Only a very few have survived this winnowing (not even NPR's excellent Science Friday made the grade, primarily because they devoted far too much time to listener call-ins for my taste), and a "best of the remaining bunch" has emerged. Surprisingly, it's the rather dry podcast of the The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
Hosted by Steven Novella (president of the New England Skeptical Society and an academic at Yale), this weekly podcast features discussions of a variety of topics from science to pseudoscience to the paranormal. I haven't listened to any recent programs because I downloaded every episode, and at this point I'm only up to episode 15, which is from late 2005 (Dover is starting to become a weekly topic). But I assume they've maintained their excellence, and so I highly recommend this podcast.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 07-19-2007 8:41 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 32 of 115 (400120)
05-10-2007 2:08 PM


The Dover Trial at YouTube
BBC broadcast a show on its Horizon program called A War On Science about the Dover Trial. It was probably broadcast here in the US, and if so I missed it, but it's at YouTube divided into five parts:
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by JustinC, posted 05-10-2007 5:12 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 35 by JustinC, posted 05-12-2007 6:53 PM Percy has replied
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 05-12-2007 8:18 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2007 8:59 AM Percy has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4926 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 33 of 115 (400143)
05-10-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-10-2007 2:08 PM


Re: The Dover Trial at YouTube
Thanks Percy. These podcasts are great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-10-2007 2:08 PM Percy has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4683 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 34 of 115 (400231)
05-11-2007 10:14 AM


The most interesting and important topics in physics
Professor Richard A. Muller teaching the class "Physics for future presidents". The class is designed to teach what is going on in the world of physics in a non-mathematical way. I watched all the videos and found them very informative. He is a great teacher, and makes the subjects easy to understand. If you have the time - watch them!
Atoms and Heat
Atoms and Heat 2
Gravity and Satellites
Gravity and Satellites 2
Radioactivity
Radioactivity 2
Nukes
Review/ In the News
Electricity and Magnetism
Electricity and Magnetism 2
Waves
Waves 2
Light
light 2
Invisible Light
Invisible Light 2
Quantum
Quantum 2
Quantum 3
Quantum 4
Review Session
Relativity
Relativity 2
Universe
Universe 2
Review Session
These are also available at the Berkeley site in podcasts, check here. Various other classes are also available through Berkeley Here
Enjoy

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kuresu, posted 05-13-2007 4:09 AM Vacate has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4926 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 35 of 115 (400359)
05-12-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-10-2007 2:08 PM


Re: The Dover Trial at YouTube
I may be slow, but how do I download YouTube videos so that I can play them on my iPod. I know google videos has this option, but I don't even see a download button at YouTube.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-10-2007 2:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 05-12-2007 7:53 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 36 of 115 (400360)
05-12-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by JustinC
05-12-2007 6:53 PM


Re: The Dover Trial at YouTube
Youtube has changed and apparently doesn't provide a download feature anymore, but if you type "youtube download" into Google you'll see that there are apparently a number of solutions available.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Remove erroneous information.
Edited by Percy, : Provide correct info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JustinC, posted 05-12-2007 6:53 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5115 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 115 (400362)
05-12-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-10-2007 2:08 PM


Re: The Dover Trial at YouTube
Thanks for the links, P.
Bertrand Russell seems to have been influenced by James to the extent that he no longer thought that a “relation” could be ultimate given the ramifications that James’ presented. Russell in the end did not think that knowing could influence what is known. Who is Livy now?
It seems to me the whole problem is one of “order”. Quine insisted on Russell’s types being not so useful because they relied on one order. Dawkins and Attenbourough’s objection to ID seems to be a possible extension of Russell’s paradox solution IF HIGHER LEVEL LOGICAL STUCTRUES were typed. Then ID might be able to explain itself and become “science”. This ?might? be possible if my attempt to link as univocal dyadic relation and a dyad underlying a perversion is true.
quote:
Set Theory and its Logic by Quine and THE MAGIC FLUTE
I do not know. The double barbed hook however does have this pictured line above in my opinion. While the positive proposition may not be science the propositional function may be thus possible.
I did see how your perspective on DI was presented. Miller’s solution about the US public deciding however seems off the mark to me. The issue of public and private *data* will continue, if I am correct and Russell not, that knowing does influence what is known. That difference separates what is universal (ultimate) from images public or private from phantoms due to bad grammar or wrong biology. The problem is that a general proposition where an apparent variable then has constituents needs to have a form and we are not seeing this made explicitly by IDers but I DO NOT THINK THAT EVOS HAVE DONE THE LOGIC on ONE ORDER of creatures changing. There are as many ”arragnements’ as there are taxonomic specialists. This is like how Russell thought about multiple physics theories. That is why I argue for ONE LINE through my AVATAR not one for icythologists, one for mammalologists one for herpetologists and one for ornithologists.As for evolution he only said a ”dog’ gives him the “image” of a SPECIES.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-10-2007 2:08 PM Percy has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 38 of 115 (400392)
05-13-2007 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Vacate
05-11-2007 10:14 AM


Re: The most interesting and important topics in physics
watching the first one. thanks for the links. these are good (especially for me--my math is rusty, and if this was math focused, I wouldn't watch this).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Vacate, posted 05-11-2007 10:14 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 39 of 115 (400398)
05-13-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-10-2007 2:08 PM


Brayton on the Dover trial
It's an OK documentary (I caught it over here), but if I remember right, it was a little vague.
Nitty gritty details, with less punches pulled can be found courtesy of a recent talk by Ed Brayton:
The first part
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-10-2007 2:08 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 40 of 115 (400555)
05-14-2007 9:15 PM


Intelligent Design Debate: Dembski vs. Scott
I haven't watched this yet, but I hear it's a gem. Bill Dembski, intelligent design advocate and author, and Edward Sisson, a lawyer who advised ID witnesses in the Kansas evolution hearings, debate Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, and James Trefil, professor of physics and author. The debate took place at Boston University on November 2, 2005. This is the BU webpage:
And this is a link to the webcast itself:
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 05-16-2007 5:03 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 115 (400709)
05-16-2007 10:56 AM


Quirks and Quarks May 19
Home | Quirks & Quarks with Bob McDonald | CBC Radio to download
This Week on Quirks & Quarks:
Putting the Brain on the Witness Stand.
Consider this case: A person stands accused of committing murder. The defence enters Exhibit One, a scan of the defendant's head. It shows damage to precisely the area of the brain that is linked to controlling emotions. So is the defendant criminally responsible for his actions? Or how about this: a witness to a crime has her brain scanned. The scan shows activity in the brain that suggests she's lying. Should her testimony be allowed into the court? As brain science advances, situations like these are going to hit the legal system more and more often. But are the courts prepared?
Plus - the asteroid that killed the Mammoths ...

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5115 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 115 (400783)
05-16-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
05-14-2007 9:15 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Debate: Dembski vs. Scott
Kinda recall that we are not supposed to post comments on the links here?
If not sorry, not to do again.
I did see most of it today. Thanks.
Scott said that “pattern”, “process” and common descent(ancestry) are empirics derived from three different types”” of data. Pattern and process were twins that were being discussed in contradistinction to pattern, process and behavior and appeared as “buzz” sounds, evolution just was, in the 80s. Scott had submerged “descent from a common ancestor” under behavior within Kant’s difference of knowledge ex datis or ex principiis.
How else could it be that Dembski wanted ID to be an alternative to Kirsher and Gerhart who wrote from the book Dembski got on the way to the debate,
quote:
“Though modern scientists may have questioned the completeness of the theory of evolution, few believed that the fundamentalprinciples(bold added) of variation and selection would not in the end explain the diversity of life. Certain groups, however, particularly active in the United States, have exaggerated and fabricated weaknesses . (The Plausibility of Life page 264)”
Dembski invoked the difference of private and public (data) instead. This is divided by Kant in “The Metaphysical Elements of Justice”. No one has updated the legislative angle of Kant’s individualistic work given Russell’s discussions of when and when not an object can be in one or more places at the same time (relevant to “explain the diversity of life” (“a distinction which divides entities into three classes (a) those which are not in any place, (b) those which are in one place at one time, but never in more than one, (c) those which are in many places at once. “ “Logic and Knowledge page 106).
So Scott by allowing each biologist to pronate a different view of pattern or process and possess by specialty different collected/collectable data (levels) have the same public datum of descent with modification but were supposed to be privy to different private data where instead of the existence of the different types of data there had to be a KNOWLEDGE from the principle.
That is the only way she can sustain that there is no contention over the existence of form-making and translation in space as ONE whole. There can be but there need not be in principle. Dembski was mistaken to invert the principle and data if he did so ( I did not listen to is whole approach) because it is the pattern(empirical) and process(rational or a posteriori or simply remembered) that speaks for the form of the descent but whether it is common or not(multiple origins vs separate orgins of life vs separate special creations, finite or infinite) no current analysis of the data can ensure. He may have remained wholly rational but then pattern may falsify his claim.
We all shape our own personal horizons. There may be different series of data to divide discussion of evolutionary concepts but this is not what Scott said. Will Provine for instance thought in the 71 that population genetics theory was intriguing with potential but by 2001( in his new preface to his book on the History of Population Genetics) felt it an impediment to learning. If data series had been developed he would have had no reason to feel this. By 87 Levin and Kaufmann wrote it all off to “numerical methods”. I could not find anyone even thinking it by then.
Symbolic Logic unfortunately has become less subtle rather than more and talking heads rule the day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-14-2007 9:15 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 43 of 115 (401422)
05-19-2007 9:00 PM


Kent Hovind does the Gish Gallop
If you thought Duane Gish used to gallop through his fallacies, wait'll you see Hovind in this debate video. Even if you've seen him many times before, this time he sets a world record! Watching him rip through fallacy after error after deception after absolutely rip-roaringly hilarious and boneheadedly ignorant statements is positively breathtaking to behold. And he does it all in just 12 minutes. Watch the first 15 minutes of this video, you won't regret it:
Sadly, audience response would appear to indicate that Hovind was persuasive.
AbE: I'm about an hour into this video, and a bit more information has gradually been revealed. The debate took place at Emery University, and the audience seems roughly balanced between creationists and evolutionists. Hovind took on three different evolutionists to avoid the excuse that "that is not my field." Two of the three evolutionists are uniformly horrible and seem bewildered by the situation they find themselves in. The third evolutionist (far left) is animated, informed, articulate, but still overwhelmed. It looks like a rout in Hovind's favor so far.
If I had no science background and this debate were my first exposure to the creation/evolution debate, then I think Hovind's arguments would be very persuasive, but his glibness and fast-talking used-car salesman style would I'm sure give me pause.
AbE: A question from the audience asked, "Is the Big Bang a reasonable scientific theory? Please Explain." Here is the answer, from the evolutionist on the right, just to illustrate that the evolutionists can't even string two articulate words together in the face of Hovind's voluminous blasts of glib ignorance:
Uh, yes, I will answer the issue for the team. Uh, yes, the Big Bang theory is viable, but it's one of two theories about the existence of the, uh, the, uh, the universe, one of which was a constant energy, uh, universe that said that, uh, basically that it simply exists and energy is somehow generated within itself inside. There is no scientific evidence to show that that particular theory of the universe, uh, has ever, uh, been proven or shown any evidence to show.
The Big Bang theory, uh, does have a sea, uh, a piece of evidence that Wilson and Concio (he means Wilson and Penzias) of Bell Labs got a, uh, Nobel Prize for discovering the fact that there was uh, elec..., uh, radiation throughout the entire universe in all particular directions believed to be the, the, uh, the remnants of the big explosion of the energy in the birth of, uh, the universe. And their antennas, uh, basically they could point, no matter how they pointed the antennas in any direction, uh, they discovered, uh, that the intensity of radiation in that particular, uh, direction was the same, which show..., which essentially was proof, uh, a proof of a piece of data that showed that there may have been something, uh, that may have made the, uh, Big Bang theory. So that, uh, we have that.
The scientific evidence right now is that, um, the Big Bang theory is, um, the best knowledge that we have. It is believed there are some very strange things about it. Uh, it starts, essentially, with there was a void. Now the void is...it wasn't a hole or a box with nothing in it. It basically didn't even have space. It was nothing. And somehow, um, a black hole the size of an atom became unstable and exploded. And it filled, essentially, into an area the size of an atom, 106 more mass than we currently have in the existing universe. I find having something that packed together, in how close we are here, and if we believe in the conservation of mass principles and things of this nature, uh, all things have to be conserved. And the conserved...the conservation has to exist either in the beginning, in the middle and at the end. And as such we are here and know today the information and the knowledge had to have existed at the beginning of creation of the, uh, of the universe.
He's not dumb, ladies and gentlemen! He was struck dumb!
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add a couple paragraphs of comment.
Edited by Percy, : More comments.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 44 of 115 (401983)
05-23-2007 8:16 AM


Way of the Master vs Rational Response
ABC's Nightline sponsored a debate between Way of the Master founders Kirk Cameron (of the Growing Pains TV show) and Ray Comfort (New Zealand evangelical minister) and members of the Rational Response Squad Brian Sapient (is that his real last name?) and Kelly (no last name given).
Links to the websites:
The debate itself is at YouTube divided into small segments. Kirk and Ray claimed they could prove the existence of God scientifically. I've only watched through most of the first presentation by Ray Comfort, but though he begins clearly and unequivocally stating that he will demonstrate the existence of God scientifically, his evidence so far is the argument from design, the ten commandments, the inevitability of being called to account for your sins at the end of your life, and the promise of everlasting life in heaven. I guess Ray doesn't know what science is. Here's episode 1:
There's also an episode 2:
--Percy
PS - In case it went unnoticed by some, let me note that my previous message in this thread now contains a couple of detailed appends.
AbE: Kelly rocks! She makes her rebuttal in Ep 1 pt 4.
AbE: At the beginning of Ep 1 pt 6 Ray Comfort responds, after being asked to address a different question, to Kelly's earlier comment that in Ray's world, Hitler goes to heaven while the millions of Jews of the holocaust go to hell. Ray reply? The gospel is open to Jew and gentile. In other words, sure, they went to hell, but they could have saved themselves had they made the right choice when they were alive. What a message of hate: If you don't believe as I believe, you're going to hell! At least some Christians are honest enough to come straight out and say it.
AbE: For an absolutely embarrassingly boneheaded presentation of one of the worst misconception of evolution, watch the first couple minutes of Ep 2 pt 2.
Edited by Percy, : Add comment.
Edited by Percy, : No reason given.
Edited by Percy, : Add comment.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 05-23-2007 8:23 AM Percy has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3725 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 45 of 115 (401984)
05-23-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
05-23-2007 8:16 AM


Re: Way of the Master vs Rational Response
We had a brief chat about this last week: link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 05-23-2007 8:16 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024