Science vs. Religion: 50 Famous Academics on God by Maria Popova Decoding divinity, or what the great intellectuals of our time have to say about science and spirituality. The dialogue between science and religion is among humanity’s oldest and most controversial, drawing each era’s greatest thinkers into some of history’s most heated debates. We’ve previously looked at a BBC documentary on the complex relationship between the two and 7 essential books on the psychology of faith. Today, we turn to a fantastic mashup of 50 famous academics — including Brain Pickings favorites Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Oliver Sacks, Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett — talking about spirituality and science, created by Jonathan Pararajasingham. I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large, because they seem to be too simple, to connected, too local, too provincial. The speakers, in order of appearance: 1. via @kirstinbutler Donating = Loving Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter.
In Defense of Science: An Interview with NCSE’s Eugenie Scott Eugenie Scott, president of the Bay Area Skeptics and executive director of the National Center for Science Education. A physical anthropologist by training, Scott has spent the past three decades defending sound science and the teaching of evolution in schools. (Photo: Liza Gross) A few weeks ago I wrote about what happens when people respond to well-established science with disbelief or mistrust. As I considered how to respond, I wondered how science educators might deal with the chasm between scientific facts and public opinion. One of America’s most revered science guardians, Scott has long taught rational thought and “science as a way of knowing” as president of the Bay Area Skeptics and as executive director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education. I spoke with Scott last week about the challenges of communicating science when evidence runs headlong into ideology, belief, and denial. You find the same thing with people who object to vaccines. Related
The Science Creative Quarterly & A DIALOGUE WITH SARAH, AGED 3: IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN THAT IF YOUR DAD IS A CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR, ASKING "WHY" CAN BE DANGEROUS SARAH: Daddy, were you in the shower? DAD: Yes, I was in the shower. SARAH: Why? DAD: I was dirty. DAD: Why does the shower get me clean? SARAH: Yes. DAD: Because the water washes the dirt away when I use soap. DAD: Why do I use soap? DAD: Because the soap grabs the dirt and lets the water wash it off. DAD: Why does the soap grab the dirt? DAD: Because soap is a surfactant. DAD: Why is soap a surfactant? DAD: That is an EXCELLENT question. DAD: Why does soap form micelles? DAD: Soap molecules are long chains with a polar, hydrophilic head and a non-polar, hydrophobic tail. SARAH: Aidrofawwic DAD: And can you say ‘hydrophobic’? DAD: Excellent! DAD: Why does it mean that? DAD: It’s Greek! SARAH: Like a monster? DAD: You mean, like being afraid of a monster? DAD: A scary monster, sure. (pause) SARAH: (rolls her eyes) I thought we were talking about soap. DAD: We are talking about soap. (longish pause) DAD: Why do the molecules have a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail? DAD: That’s complicated.
Terry Pratchett speaks to Fiona Phillips about living with Alzheimer’s On my way to interview Sir Terry Pratchett I tweeted about our meeting. The responses ranged from: “How amazing! He’s a fabulous writer and totally awe-inspiring person”, to “I hope you find him as well as can be expected” and “You and he are both doing so much for dementia”. And that’s why we were meeting. The Discworld author first said he had it in December 2007, just over a year after I’d lost my mum Amy to early-onset Alzheimer’s. It was a particularly bleak period as we were told that my dad Neville also had it. Until then, I’d felt a bit of a voice in the wilderness, going on about the lack of understanding and good care. Terry’s honesty was a eureka moment for me. But it didn’t seem that way when I introduced myself and went to shake his hand. Dressed from head-to-toe in his trademark black, a top hat and frock coat, he looked like an authoritarian Dickensian character from his Oliver Twist-inspired novel Dodger. When he didn’t offer his hand back my heart sank a little. Daily Mirror
The Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense The curiously revered world of irrational nonsense has seeped into almost every aspect of modern society and is both complex and multifarious. Therefore rather than attempt a comprehensive taxonomy, I have opted instead for a gross oversimplification and a rather pretty Venn Diagram. In my gross over simplification the vast majority of the multitude of evidenced-free beliefs at large in the world can be crudely classified into four basic sets or bollocks. Namely, Religion, Quackery, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. However as such nonsensical beliefs continue to evolve they become more and more fanciful and eventually creep across the bollock borders. Religious Bollocks ∩ Quackery Bollocks ∩ Pseudoscientific Bollocks ∩ Paranormal Bollocks = Scientology UPDATE 24th March 2013 Many thanks for the retweets and shares. I have also received the first translated copy of the Venn Diagram produced by Pavle Močilac of the Croatian Society for Promotion of Science and Critical Thinking.
The Skeptic's Dictionary