shakespeare and the clash! YES!

Woah, the beginning of this makes me think, "lay off the Columbian marching powder, George".

Angier's hand gestures are seriously distracting.

How is it that all these smart people can't figure out how to appeal to an audience?

I admit I look like a horrible geek right now but if I was going to go on TV or something like that, I would take some acting-type classes, get a good haircut and a manicure, buy a properly fitted suit, that sort of thing (provided I could afford them... if I was successful enough to be a candidate for a TV appearance, presumably I would).

It's not rocket science.

I dunno...This woman seemed a little out of it.

Although you can't get bird flu from EATING chicken, she might have mentioned you can get bird flu during the preparation of cleaning/cooking birds.

She says you can't get sick from the viral material of the flu vaccine. But “other things in the vaccine” can give you the “chills”. Yes, the virus is killed, but many people do experience minor flu-like symptoms shortly after getting the vaccine, especially the nasal spray version which has live but weakened virus.

“Do people of different races have different genetic makeups?” Her answer: “No.” But people of different races DO have different genetic makeups (just as different individuals have different genetic makeups). Just because we're a young species doesn't mean this isn't true. Anyone know if it's true that “there are more differences among people of a racial group than between races.” (I'd be interested in how “differences” are measured)? The correct answer is “Yes, but...” not “No, but...”

The Internet “skirts” ideas? What Internet is she on? The Internet is a massive repository of ideas.

“most people are caught in their own heads.... the universe has a reality” I think this woman is kinda caught in her own head. With all the beauty and love and the universe is real, man stuff...

But the best part was when the interview ended and she just kinda walked away.

I really like the interviewer. I've seen him before and his questions are usually pretty great.

Oh how terrible! A person on TV who doesn't have the personal skills and presentation of the geniuses like Oprah, or Falwell! What DO you people want? You vote for a president on how tall he is, or what his hair looks like on TV, and wonder why the country is in such a state. Some people can make a good case for an idea, but that doesn't mean that, if they can't, the idea is wrong.(comparable to "scientific studies should be judged on their own merits")

She was answering questions on a popular TV show and had she gone into detail about the make up of vaccines she would have lost most of the audience. She DID mention the greater variation between the individuals of one race than between races, chowderhead! But I suppose that is an example of selective memory - you only remember what suits your (based on superficiality) prejudice.

On my blog I also talk about science and education - check it out:

http://thirdwaveiscoming.blogspot.com

Regards,

To Chowderhead regarding racial difference

New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19325952.000-are-we-born-prejudiced.html

full article here:

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/f83efe294f5c85f585257015006e1949/2fb79b1fd74e2136852572e90077ffa4?OpenDocument

Of course different breeds of human have slightly different genetic makeups, just like different breeds of dogs or anything else. The differences are so slight, though, that we can still interbreed and are still the same species (Homo sapiens sapiens) just like dogs can interbreed and are still considered the same species (Canis lupus familiaris).

I can relate to her enthusiasm for science, and I fully agree that society needs to become much more scientifically literate.

However, she isn't an effective communicator, at least not on television.

I think that a good way to inspire people is to begin talking about science (and the scientific method) in a historical context.

My favourite example of this method is JFK's famous Rice stadium speech. Transcript/video here:

http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/ricetalk.htm

Andy.

I agree with pedantsareus - she was not a "TV personality" but her mannerisms were no more distracting than the average person. (In other words, if she taught a science class, the students wouldn't mock her any more than they'd mock the average teacher.)

I liked her answers for the most part - the only one I'd really take issue with is the answer to the "Is Pluto a planet?" question. I think she supplied the answer she had been hoping to give to a more generalized question like, "Why should people be interested in science?" I think that most viewers would be puzzled about why she thought the whole "debate" about Pluto's planethood was "beautiful" - I sure was. As a chemist who likes to read about astronomy, I thought the "Pluto debate" was about as exciting as watching butterfly collectors arguing the fine points of nomenclature. I figured it got big play in the media because that is the kind of question - questions of nomenclature - that scientifically illiterate journalists think science is about (like she said, 'memorizing glossaries' - a dead-on description).

she's a brilliant communicator on paper, who wrote great articles in the NYTimes.

what rubbed me the wrong way was her self-depiction as a "radical diehard atheist."

when juxtaposed with mainstream american views, atheism is misunderstood as radical. but unlike organized religion, atheism by itself is not radical.

actually, Angier said it best -- atheism is the "default" or "null" position. i prefer to characterize that as reasoned and thoughtful, not diehard or radical.

she probably likes going against the grain and being radical, as many of us do. hopefully it's not at the expense of misrepresenting the spirit of atheism.

I agree with what she said -- in principle -- but to say that you needed to know how to read in order to survive back in the days, is a bad exaggeration. Today, it's almost true, yet not quite. Saying that you need to know science in today's world, in order to survive is an outrageous exaggeration.

Being literate in past centuries, and knowledge of science in today's world could mean the difference between being a poorly paid, unskilled laborer, or having a highly paid job -- that's more accurate.

Knowledge of science can be hugely beneficial to a person -- that's how I'd put it.

And ditto on the "radical diehard atheist" phrase. Atheists are accused of being radical, militant, and fanatical by the religious -- it's a horrible idea to label ourselves that way.

The fact that I do not respect, nor pay reverence to irrational behavior does not make me a radical -- whether that irrational behavior involves believing in God, or believing that you are Napoleon.

Oh, and another point...

Her over-the-top gesticulation really is bad. If she thinks it is important for her to bring the message of science to people, how come she hasn't bothered to learn how to communicate that message a little better..? It kinda makes her seem like a stereotypical anti-social science nerd at best, and at worst, like an arrogant science nerd that considers all things other than science, unimportant...

Presentation matters. Presentation without a good message is worthless, of course, but a poorly presented message isn't a good thing neither.

"what rubbed me the wrong way was her self-depiction as a "radical diehard atheist.""

That is just the thing that NEEDS to be said, not for the adult jesus-freaks but for young people who can learn that it is ok to be a rational person rather than a blithering superstitious moron.

If they never hear it, they will probably never know that it is possible.

As to those who criticize her manner, what a bunch of nitpickers who have nothing else to say. I didn't even notice the gesticulation until quibblers here suggested it was a problem.

Give me a break.

Presentation without a good message is actually quite valuable. The Media IS the message in many modern instances. Read Assault On Reason, consider the studies on voter assumptions re: candidates, why do women vote men?, why does the con-didate representing majority view not even win among those who have heard his platform?!

Saying that you need to know science in today's world, in order to survive is an outrageous exaggeration.

An exaggeration perhaps, but not outrageous. How many die each year because of their lack of understanding of some basic physics. The many accidents with electricity come to mind. And what of those brilliant few who mix bleach and ammonia something they could avoid by being able to read or a little basic chemistry. Remember gravity is not just a good idea, it's the law.

An exaggeration perhaps, but not outrageous. How many die each year because of their lack of understanding of some basic physics.

That's not a matter of lack of scientific knowledge; it's lack of common sense. Also, accidents happen -- having a sound understanding of science is no guarantee that you won't make a mistake or have a brainfart...

When someone falls off a balcony while doing a handstand, it's because they're reckless, dumb -- whatever you wanna call it -- not because they don't comprehend Newtonian physics.

just a small point:

...whether that irrational behavior involves believing in God, or believing that you are Napoleon.

-neither one of which is a behavior. unless you want to talk about how belief NECESSARILY leads to behaviour- in which case i would have to point out that a person who believes there's no afterlife, no reward and punishment after death, might do some crazy shit, thinking "what the hell? you only live once."

just sayin'.

i mean, i do crazy shit all the time. and what do i tell myself? "chances are pretty slim i'm going to have to pay for this".

I didn't get much from her presentation but I doubt that many hard core Dawkins fans would. She's speaking to a different audience.

I will check out the book mostly to see how her writing compares to personal presentation. I am assuming she is better at the writing.

She made some good points, about as much as one could in a seven minute studio interview. I suspect the audience will be more forgiving of the style than many around here would be just because most of us have been exposed to so much other stuff, other writers, and have lived with the ideas longer than most people in a mainstream audience.

In deed, you don't need to read to survive, if you don't mind living on the street with a life expectancy of 35 to forty years.

The US will not survive as a major player in anything, if this dumbing down continues. The rest of the world is marching on while we are dancing back ward.

point being, i guess, just cuz it's rational don't make it GOOD.

In deed, you don't need to read to survive, if you don't mind living on the street with a life expectancy of 35 to forty years.

something else kurt vonnegut, in his sympathetic humanism talks about a lot: the importance of the extended family group. people who don't live in a malthusian universe, who have (or have created) such "extended families" can indeed live long, full lives with all kinds of handicaps. its up to us whether we want to accept this kind of social darwinism that america is becoming the prime merchant of.

all this gets me thinking. i know its just crazy talk, but i've been hanging around here awhile, and i've seen a lot of excellent arguments for how morality is not dependant on religion. but i'm asking you,dzwonka, because you're really good at this (and you're around): if an atheist wants to kill someone, and he KNOWS he can get away with it, in terms of "the law" and "this world", whats to stop him? i guess i'll stop there, you get the idea. i'm sure there's some pat answer for this, it just escapes me at the moment.

i need to know before the weekend.:)

I can't respond for Dzwonka but surely the simple answer would be evolution and theory of mind. Which are hopefully the same things that keep religious people from murdering.

Sorry Jonathan, I must chime in.

I don't know that there is a pat anwer to that question. American prisons are full to the brim with believers who have murdered or seriously harmed people. Many of which were believers before going to prison.

This leads me to believe that the personal choice the would be killer has to make is similar for everyone whether they believe in God or not.

I don't need gods or religion to believe that stealing a human life is a major bad thing with terrible concequences for some one, even if I know I could get away with it.

with the exception of religiously motivated murders, I doubt that god would come into the equation, for most believers, until after the event.

My belief that human life is sacred has become stronger since I gave up all concepts of an 'afterlife'. It becomes more precious and killing even more terrible when you don't believe in an afterlife. What you get is all you get and taking from someone is super wrong.

I think it the end it is a personal moral choice that doesn't usually have a big god factor in it at the time of the decision.

Catholics and numerous denominations of protestants view suicide as an unforgivable slap in gods' pink face yet they pop themselves off with great regularity.

I think the choice is more personal than religion to all but the very most committed believers.

That's all opinion, I can't prove a word of it. :)

hi thomas and thanks. my question, of course only holds water if you're willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that someone REALLY believes in the "reward and punishment after death thing". i've seen a lot of evidence, both here and elsewhere, that such a person doesn't really exist. but for the sake of argument...

now the willingness to "slap god in the face" is something else. this hypothetical believer may, in extremis, be willing to do just that. but only in extremis- he knows he's going to pay dearly, and doesn't care at that point. my question relates to a non-believer (all of us, maybe): what's to keep him from doing it on a whim? the understanding of the value of the other persons life, as you so beautifully put it, doesn't seem very convincing to me. why should the thief care about the value to the owner of what he steals?

the simple answer would be evolution...

give me a break. evolution isn't the answer to EVERYTHING. and college was a long time ago- is "theory of mind" supposed to mean something to me?

T's a good question. On suicide, you are right, it is a different issue with the appearance of direct, terrible, and inescapable consequences IF one is a believer.

You always have time to be forgiven for a murder but suicide has this time factor thing that gets very sticky.

As I understand your question and the the necessity to accept that one Really believes that god is watching.

The problem is, of course, it presupposes the believer is endowed with something neither of us believes he is actually endowed with. And that the non believer is therefore lacking in this supposed quality factor.

Leaving aside my own phlosophical waxings on the value of life, which are obviously not shared by the world in general, I have not pat answer to the question posed that way.

Darn you Jonathan, now this will plague me all day.

Another example of your Israeli aggression, forcing me to think on sunday, will the barbarism never stop? You feind! :)

did anyone here, by any chance, see a movie called "murder by numbers", with sandra bullock? based on a true story, i think, but in any case not so farfetched. would a hypothetical "true" believer get involved in something like this? i'm leaving out the usual hitler/stalin/mao/pol pot etc. references.

again, killing someone because god wants them dead is certainly bad enough. what about killing someone because YOU want them dead? or just because you think it would be a gas to kill someone? and you can get away with it?

The problem is, of course, it presupposes the believer is endowed with something neither of us believes he is actually endowed with. And that the non believer is therefore lacking in this supposed quality factor.

yeah, but that's reality. i don't know anything about THAT. :)

I saw that film but don't remember enough of it to comment. Guess I didn't like it.

If you are a believer, killing some one because God wants them dead is a good thing. Ask your friendly neighborhood suicide bomber.

Oddly enough, with most killing believers, the believer and God seem to have a lot of shared opinions, especially who each one wants dead. Don't you think God, grand string puller of the universe could arrange a heart attack or embolism, or kidney failure or something. Rather than sending the believer to kill and or be killed and probably kill a lot of bystanders?

I mean, if it was really God what wanted the 'bad guy' dead, I would think the knower of all things, creator of the stars and planets, could wiggle his invisible mustache and break a heart valve any time, any place, in anyone he wished.

Thrill killing, killing on a whim, Is often the behaviour of sociopaths. No god in that equation except that god made sociopaths and psychopaths too, you know.

If belief in god and everlasting punishment was what really kept people from killing and raping and stealing from each other, atheists would not be a problem for the believers because we would all be dead or in jail. Yet in reality, we represent a smaller minority in prisons than in the general population. Remember that athiests have the same social legal pressures against commiting crime as the believers do.

Still, with the believers' specified proviso, it's no longer a real world question or debate.

it never was. thanks for your thoughtful thoughts, though.

She's cute and smart. A great combo.

"Theory of Mind," do autistics murder? Often? Psychopaths have egg-cell-ent Mind Theory. Maybe TOO excellent.

Psychopaths survive/evolve in (pre-cameraphone, pre-youtube?) megacities.

"evolution isn't the answer to EVERYTHING."

Sez Who?

A theory of anything/everything either will use some more general idea of which DNA, Earth biological evolution, is but a particular, but not peculiar instance, or a theory of anything/everything will NOT use some more general idea of which DNA, Earth biological evolution is a particular but not peculiar instance.

Ex amples gratias:

"Atman, Atman, Atman,...

Atman,..." I am out of breath, have been exerting myself too much.

"Braaahhhmmaann..." Now I am resting, taking broad breaths, Brahma-, infinitely longer than before...

One evolves into the other, Whisperation. A Fourier tranform-ation.

In the light of Darwin I nominate the sinuous sinewavelet as the cosmic replacement for the perfect heavenly Plotinic circle.

No Heinrich Heineian Eternal Return with the Real. No rational square root of, ...twining two.

Subject switch, discontinuity:

Races don't exist. We're all just (mostly) the empty spaces between the atoms. Racists don't exist either, by the same logic.

AUMMMmmmmm...

I bet on the former (A theory of anything/everything will use some more general idea of which DNA, Earth biological evolution, is but a particular, but not peculiar instance.) Evidence gradually accumulates.

For example, in 5O,000-150,000 years races HAVE evolved. HAVE. As have loony cultural viruses, "ideas" about them. An atmo-sphere of intolerance for intolerance waxes and wanes like the Moon. Broad-minded Brahman waits it out,

out, out, brief, candid candle,... long, Nirvana.

Pedant--

"She DID mention the greater variation between the individuals of one race than between races, chowderhead! "

Yes, I know she did. I was specifically quoting her. I just found most of her answers as the "science lady" to be misleading and/or incomplete is all. Give me Don Herbert any day...

Folks-- I have done my share of science promotion in venues like this show. I think she did a fine job. She is funny, articulate, knowledgeable, willing to answer the questions honestly, and she did a good job in explaining this stuff to a public-level audience.

I'd like to see her doing more promotion for science, and in fact this video could be used to show scientists a good way to communicate effectively on TV.

I enjoyed her talk; she gestured about as much as George Stromboulopoulos, and she kept her answers short, snappy, and to the main point. So I ordered the book, which I hadn't heard of before.

Also, oddly enough, gesturing helps people to learn and to remember what they've learned.

(from LiveScience: Simple Gesturing Helps Students...

if an atheist wants to kill someone, and he KNOWS he can get away with it, in terms of "the law" and "this world", whats to stop him?
-- jonathan becker

Empathy. Compassion. We are social creatures. It isn't as if murder was considered a perfectly reasonable act, but no longer so, because of religion.

On the flip side, if a person genuinely, whole-heartedly and truly did believe in Christianity, murdering a baptised child would be the most wonderful, compassionate and selfless act a human being could do. Because the kid would be guaranteed eternal bliss in heaven -- while the murderer would pay for this good deed with eternal torment in hell (because there'd be no way for him to repent, since the act ultimately was a good one).

Murder by Number was okay, but Hitchcock's Rope was a lot better -- similar concept. Both are based on the real life story of Leopold and Loeb, two privileged, intelligent kids who decided they were so smart they could get away with murder. They didn't. Maybe they weren't genuine psychopaths, in the sense that they had no emotions, but that they could have so little empathy for a fellow human being makes them indistinguishable from a true psychopath.

Basically, defective human beings.

if a person genuinely, whole-heartedly and truly did believe in Christianity, murdering a baptised child would be the most wonderful, compassionate and selfless act a human being could do.

come on! really? i mean, i see the "logic", but isn't murder technically forbidden to christians?

ohhhhhhh....ya almost had me there.

about empathy and compassion: oh, evolution again. ok, but these feelings are usually reserved (i think) for people we DON'T want to kill. :) am i just being ornery? i've already admitted the question is hypothetical.

come on! really? i mean, i see the "logic", but isn't murder technically forbidden to christians?

It would seem so, but self-identified Christians have no problem devising rationalizations to address "Thou shalt not kill," especially when war or capital punishment is involved. You state yourself that believers may be willing to commit suicide in spite of a prohibition, so why not kill others? In fact, if one could manage to kill many children and thus save them from possible future damnation, might that not be worth the cost to one's own "soul"? That's why the hypothetical act was described as "selfless", but you seem to have ignored that part in your response.

In fact, you seem to be paying no attention to altruism throughout this discussion. I don't know if you truly believe so, but it is as if you consider it inconceivable for one person to help another for kindness' own sake rather than because of external reward or punishment. Most who claim that atheists are somehow less able to be moral than believers seem to think that way. It happens with such regularity that it tempts one to wonder if those believers have let true compassion atrophy, to be replaced by religious rules.

I'm inclined to think that they've simply been conditioned to think that whatever virtues they may exhibit are to the credit of the religion rather to themselves, not that they truly do not care about others beyond what religion demands. Still, give me the atheist who both has compassion and knows it over the believer who'd have my guts if God'd only let him any day.

I don't know why the believers keep on presenting this same old "you can't have morals without God" argument, especially since it never makes them look good unless you happen to consider "fearing God" the only virtue there is.

P.S. How exactly do you address the sectarian violence raging as we speak without resorting to saying that no true Scotsman would do it?

come on! really? i mean, i see the "logic", but isn't murder technically forbidden to christians?

Yes, and that's an important part of that hypothetical situation: you break the law, and take the punishment -- just so you can do something good for someone else. It's the ultimate self-sacrifice. If Christianity is true, that is.

This isn't an example of the inherent lack of logic in Christianity -- it is just an example of how Christians do not GENUINELY believe their stuff. They cling to the hope that Christianity is true, and that there'll be a reward, and punishment. But to truly believe it, means madness.

There's no difference between Andrea Yates and Abraham.

i dont' know about christianity, but in judaism there's a very clear legal concept of "mitzva l'yadai averah"- basically thats its forbidden to do a bad thing to bring about a good result.

i know christianity doesn't have a legal system the way judaism does, but i assume the "church fathers", or whatever they're called weren't complete idiots and they must have something similar. in any case, i've never heard of a baby killer using such a rationalization (i killed her so her soul could arrive in heaven pure) and if it did happen, i'm sure no christian leader would condone it. so i think this whole issue is a red herring. i actually thought you were joking at first. i think i understand, though. in my years of religious study (probably wasted years...) i've come across a lot of righteous indignation when kids get their first glimmer of understanding of what the story of the sacrifice of isaak is really saying. i guess i'm still one of those kids. its a bitch.

Natalie Angier rocks, a great science writer, she looks good and she did fine on this show. There are some really wierd dudes writing in the comments.

btw, if god told me to kill one of my kids, i'd say "go fuck yourself. you do it. you're the expert." but then, god never spoke to me personally, and i wouldn't be so quick to judge abraham. here's why:

if any parent told me that there was LITERALLY nothing more important to him than his kids, (and violence wasn't a concern) i'd call him a liar to his face. only kids think that way, not parents- not honest parents, anyway. parents "sacrifice" their children all the time, in all kinds of ways. the story in the bible is deeper than you might think.

There are some really wierd dudes writing in the comments

ain't that the truth? i was noticing that myself. :)

Excerpt of THE CANON on NPR's website:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10013960

Are we really having a discussion on why athiests make moral decisions? I'll let Hitchens handle this for me.

http://htswl.blogspot.com/2004/03/christopher-hitchens-lecture.html

“Do people of different races have different genetic makeups?” ... and when you notice some races have darker/yellower skin, blonde hair, epithelial folds on their eyes, or wider noses - well, that's not genetic?

"There are some really wierd dudes writing in the comments."

Like the dude that posted me.

There are also some really wired dudes writing in the comments.

Unlike the dude who posted me.

There are also some really weird spellings in the comments.

Usages too, too much neologism on their hands (not mine, I don't have any).

I think she's beautiful and very articulate. I don't understand the negative comments about her.

I am crazy about this guys show, he has such a understanding and great journalistic approach

About this lady, she is right - about her personality... she is missing some serious social skills, notice how she is unable to look him in the eyes, and how she walks out at the end... :) Well that asides she was great