I'm finally admitting the shameful truth: I'm a Bob Mcdonald fanboy. I have been since Wonderstruck was on when I was a kid. In a world where intelligent, balanced science reporters are as common as hen's teeth, he's one of the few who actually are able to explain science interestingly, clearly, and without stupid hype. So now I command you, my minions...er loyal readers to go out and listen to Quirks and Quarks. It will make you a better person. Small children will sing your praises. Hell, it may even keep Joel Schumacher from ever directing another Batman movie. For those of you in "humanities", and don't think science is "interesting", or "useful", well, I'll forgive you this time, but only if you follow these links.
(ps: please don't hit me. I break easily.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
But the thing is, Quirks and Quarks isn't "pop science" at least not like most people imagine it. He actually takes the time to try and explain the scientific arguements, and how a concensus is reached. He doesn't just rely on the "hey, this is a cool soundbite" method of reporting. It's science news that a scientist can listen to and enjoy. It's the exact opposite of Popular Science. He actually is interested in science, as opposed to just simplified ideas that are probably misrepresented anyway.
And while we're experimenting on animal rights activists, can we experiment on tree-huggers as well? Damn hippies. (For any random person reading this: I'm an enviromentalist. That still doesn't mean I have to like people who think a "viable solution" to a problem is to blow up an oil tanker or stop hunting everything.)
It's okay, Eric, I'm a Bob MacDonald Fangirl myself. I used to watch Wonderstruck every Saturday morning instead of cartoons. It was on right after Street Cents, which was my favourite show when I was 7, 8 and 9. I have been a geek since I was conscious of anything beyond simple hunger.
At least count yourself lucky that you haven't fallen under the spell of Leonard Nimoy. It's a sad, sad life I lead.
I make fun of arts majors a great deal (noting that arts majors make fun back *cough* Caitlin *cough*) but I've got a lot of respect for the arts. Half my family has arts degrees. It takes all kinds to rule the world (which is why I'm looking for all kinds to help in the take-over) and I frankly can't stand a large portion of science majors and engineers anyway. I'm just saying that a background understanding in science can benifit anyone, no matter what your interested in.
As for hippies, well, I really have no problems, except with those people who seem to think that we can help the enviroment only by making people suffer. They are the self-righteous ones who seem to think that the world would be a better place if only everyone agreed with them on every point. That kind of thinking bugs me no matter who's putting it forward. It's just sloppy.
In response to TJ: the thing about hen's teeth: cool. And I suspect that Julius Caesar’s horse is a good example of atavistic structures because he had 2 or 3 toes on it's feet, but I haven't heard anything about it before, so thats just a wild guess, based on the classic concept of the evolution of the horse. Other possible changes could be dentation or the shape of the skull, I guess.
Oh, and for the record -- I am a fine art graduate, and I do know the properties and makeup of the pigments I used. We're all generally told how the paints are made and what the pigment used in each is. Also, the pigments themselves are often named after the chemical reaction that creates them, i.e. chrome oxide green is the common name (not even a secret scientific name!) of a particular earthy-toned green. I can go into the specifics that separate oils (linseed oil, pigment, and turpentine), acrylics (pigment suspended in acrylic gel medium that dries to create a polymer solid), watercolour (pigment suspended in gum arabic) and tempera (pigment suspended in egg glair). I could go on, also, to talk about oil pastels as opposed to chalk pastels, and the process of actual manufacturing of colours that I did in my kitchen.
I back Kaedra up on her comment, too. Have you seen the Engineering Building? A prime example of what scientists get up to when they fail to consult artists.
Okay, how the feck does knowing the chemical make-up of a pigment make that picture any closer to *truth*? How does knowing the evolutionary pattern of a chicken change the nature of that chicken? It doesn't. One thing I've noticed about many, many science types (not all, of course) is that they make the mistake of thinking that science is the world, when that's not the case: it is a way of understanding the world, and of mediating the world, but it is not any closer to genuine capital 't' Truth than fine arts, or poetry, or religion. It is that kind of scientific arrogance that will always hold the discipline back. To go all Socratic on you, the first step in attaining Truth is to acknowledge how little one knows in all things, not merely natural philosophy, which arrogantly brands itself as *reality* rather than just one more way of understanding that reality.
Well, unless Eric just makes shit up about you, my friend (as he is wont to do in general), you are a Buddhist: in search of Enlightenment for the sake of Nirvana, and to get out of this bloody Moksha. So, frankly, unless you want to reincarnate as a sociologist or grasshopper, I think you'd *better* give a flying fuck about capital 't' Truth.
Wow, I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest here.... This thread alone seems to have doubled the number of comments on this blog. (I love it when this stuff happens. Shit-disturbing is fun). But while we're debating, try not to kill each other....
As for Big T truth... well, I don't think it's an attainable goal. Tell you the truth (little t that is) I frankly don't think there is a big truth, no ultimate answer to the "why do we exist" question. The idea that the universe deep down has no point is, for some reason, deeply satisifying to me. It exists because it exists.
Even if there is a big T truth, well, we couldn't discover it through science (or any other method, really), since it would have to exist independantly of the universe. Science inhertly is the act of studying phenomeon within the universe, i.e. those things we can observe and measure. Beyond those bounds, the scientific method is useless.
Hmm . . . no truth, Eric? That's very, oh, I don't know, *post-modern* of you. As to Truth, I don't think humans can ever attain it; we are weak and pathetic and useless and fundamentally flawed, but I, the existentialist Christian, believe that we are in the process of discovering that Truth whenever we seek to become greater than what we are . . . or something like that.
Oh I believe in truth. Just not ultimate truth. No matter how deep we look, there'll likely be another layer under it. Its just I don't think that the universe has a greater purpose or goal. We can keep asking "why does this work?" but I can't see there being an ultimate why, a final answer that explains everything else.
And really, both art and science can coexist quite happily, because they try and explain things on different levels. There's room for both, because both levels of analysis have validity. I can say that humans appreciate beauty because things we consider beautiful helped us survive at some point in time, without ever detracting from the fact that a given work is beautiful. It doesn't stop being beautiful just because we can explain it. (In fact, I find that when I understand something at a simpler level, it becomes even more facinating). Art and language emerge from the interaction of simpler things (the wonders of emergent properties), but they still exist in their own right.
Hmm . . . I personally think humans are pathetic/weak/nasty etc. Yes, we do have the propensity for great kindness, but that is more often than not overshadowed by our propensity for random, thoughtless acts of cruelty and articulated evil, and I think all people are not only capable of that, but often have a tendency towards it. I don't think humans are basically good. I think they are far too complex to be labeled as either "good" or "evil." I don't think we have the right to claim either of those as our own; again, as a Xian existentialist, I think we are created neutral and our experiences/decisions form who we are: existence precedes essence.
And the whole "layer" thing, Eric? That's very post modern. You can't get away from it! Post-modernism is one of the only philosophies/movements that generally doesn't acknowledge an ultimate truth. Face it, man, you're a deconstructionist.
Hhmm, are humans intrisically evil? I'd have to say no. We are intrisically evolved. Morality evolved just like everything else, as a survival feature. That's why no one is ever always moral: it never paid for anyone to be entirely giving. Its the old "hawks and doves" game: any game dominated by "doves" (peaceful creatures) can be overwhelmed by the entrance of one "hawk". Any game where hawks dominate can be overwhelmed by doves who save their energy not fighting everyone in sight. The only sitution that lasts is a mix. (Evolutionary Stable Stratgies. fun stuff). However, we can set it up so it pays to be moral... thats what society is for.
And as for being a post-modernist: I still don't think so. I'm a fan of Chaos Theory, but that's material science to the core. Just because things have many layers doesn't mean we can't explain those layers. I think we're talking at cross-purposes about this ultimate truth thing: I don't see an ultimate purpose to the universe, but science has never had anything to say on ultimate purpose. It litrally can't. But can everything be explained: yes. There is nothing that can't theoretically be explained using, oh, say, atomic theory. It's just not useful to use atomic theory to explain poetry. It doesn't add to our understanding.
(Ps: please clarify what exactly you mean when you say post-modernism.... frankly, it's one of those terms that has no set meaning, so we could just be talking about two entirely different things.)
Okay, to bring this to an even 20 comments... I'm going to bed. I have the headache from hell, and I need to get up at 7:00 tommorow. Feel free to continue posting... if this conversation keeps up, I'll probably be contributing again. but for now, goodnight all.
argh. My tonsils hurt. And my brain hurts. I don't think I have the energy to try to justify divine presence, post-modernism, that humans are neither basically good nor basically evil, or that humans are more than evolved monkeys what with the five essays due and the tonsils the size of small South African homelands . . . I was happier arguing about the new Star Wars franchise and Abbey Road on Anders' blog . . .
Post a Comment