Has anyone else noticed that the female scientists they have on Stargazing Live, and the follow-up "Back To Earth" programme they do, all tend to be pretty good looking? It was the same with Dara O'Brien's Science Club too.
I can only assume that either:-
1. All female scientists are quite hot.
2. They don't let the ug-bugs on the telly.
Conversely, there is a fairly high grey-hair and brown corduroy quotient among the male scientists that appear.
So why are university students always so keen on mass debates?
I like Brian Cox - he has the ability to dumb down which most clever people struggle with. He might be dumbing down too much, but that would be under instructions from the BBC. Dara is massively intelligent too and dumbs down to a comedic level - and therefore rarely shows how clever he is, but he's confident with it.
I don't think he's smug - I think he's shy, and has to think carefully about what he says so he doesn't get blank looks back!
Has anyone else noticed that the female scientists they have on Stargazing Live, and the follow-up "Back To Earth" programme they do, all tend to be pretty good looking? It was the same with Dara O'Brien's Science Club too.
I can only assume that either:-
1. All female scientists are quite hot.
2. They don't let the ug-bugs on the telly.
Conversely, there is a fairly high grey-hair and brown corduroy quotient among the male scientists that appear.
Hmmm... curious.
seems to be the trend for all serious science progs
Has anyone else noticed that the female scientists they have on Stargazing Live, and the follow-up "Back To Earth" programme they do, all tend to be pretty good looking? It was the same with Dara O'Brien's Science Club too.
I can only assume that either:-
1. All female scientists are quite hot.
2. They don't let the ug-bugs on the telly.
Conversely, there is a fairly high grey-hair and brown corduroy quotient among the male scientists that appear.
Hmmm... curious.
Those of us with higher intelligence tend to be sexy. Live with it dummy :razz:
I think Professor Cox annoys me in the same way Richard Dawkins and a lot of other scientists and academics do.....
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time, they aren't really willing to accept a different view or especially anything wildly different from their viewpoint.
It's not that I dislike any of them, and they do a lot of good work in explaining things in terms most people will understand. It's just that in terms of accepting other ideas, they are just as blinkered by what they accept as truth as the people on the opposite side of the fence.
As I said before, I only really noticed this with Brian Cox when I started reading his Twitter posts....
I think Professor Cox annoys me in the same way Richard Dawkins and a lot of other scientists and academics do.....
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time, they aren't really willing to accept a different view or especially anything wildly different from their viewpoint.
Different views like what though? Any real scientist understands that we don't know everything and we have to alter our view of the world when presented with evidence contrary to our current understanding.
Dawkins annoys me too, but it's not because he's a scientist :)
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time, they aren't really willing to accept a different view or especially anything wildly different from their viewpoint.
When you have a proof of a theory there really is no room for any other "viewpoint" no matter how wild it may seem. They are scientists. This is how they roll.
Different views like what though? Any real scientist understands that we don't know everything and we have to alter our view of the world when presented with evidence contrary to our current understanding.
Exactly. What it is that annoys him, and anyone else with a decent education, is people with just some whimsy they dreamt up one night with no evidence and no testing being put forward as an alternative explanation to a theory which has undergone some fairly rigorous testing by people who actually understand it.
Now there have been some remarkable innovations and inventions by what are often termed 'amateurs', but these are still people who have had enough respect to at least read up on a subject before trying their own spin on it, instead of just watching a bit of telly and thinking they now know more than anyone. For all the religious nutters who would have Darwin strung up for his heresy, I've not met a single one who genuinely grasps the theory of evolution by natural selection before having a pop at it.
For example, there's a significant difference between hunting for a dwarf planet that gravitational models suggest might be tugging on the ones we can see, or the Higgs Boson when plenty of other observations and calculations (by smart people who check each others' work) indicate there's a common unknown factor just beyond the reach of the instruments, and going ghost-hunting with a known fraudulent self-acclaimed spiritualist because some D-list coke-addled f*ckwit 'celebrity' claims their granny always got a funny feeling in the basement.
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time, they aren't really willing to accept a different view or especially anything wildly different from their viewpoint.
That tells me you don't know the difference between 'conjecture' and a 'theory'. What a 'theory' is, and what your 'alternative viewpoint' is not, is backed up by considerable peer-reviewed evidence. When you can come up with more substantiated evidence for your viewpoint than someone else has for theirs, then they should listen. When it's just some rot someone made up with nothing much to back it up, why should anyone listen?
I have no problem with Brian Cox when he's presenting something live. He has an engaging personality and enthusiasm for the subject and he does well to deliver it in an understandable way to the masses.
I hate anything he does as a voice over or prerecorded, though. The delivery of his lines are overly dramatic... almost... like... listening... to... Shatner. But with an added Wow this is amazing factor. I can't describe it adequately. I know it irritates the heck of out of me.
Some say he should be the next presenter of the Sky at night. Piffle. I'd vote Brian May for that.
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time
Theory (in the context of science) does not mean "hunch" or "guess". A theory is actually something very concrete, there's no such thing as "scientific fact" (except in common speech), it's ALL theory. For instance, things over which there is no controversy, such as our understanding of electricity is also theory. Despite this, these theories have resulted in the development of things like light switches and computers which pretty much cement the point that theory != guess.
A theory is not a belief. Religious belief is not equal to theory, because theory is something that is testable (and importantly) falsifiable. Scientific theory is not static, either. While some theory hasn't changed in many years, others are continuously being refined through the scientific process.
Whenever someone says "Well X is just a theory" in the context of some piece of science (especially when trying to make some (almost always religious) counter argument) it is an almost 100% reliable indicator they don't actually understand what a scientific theory actually is.
Whenever someone says "Well X is just a theory" in the context of some piece of science (especially when trying to make some (almost always religious) counter argument) it is an almost 100% reliable indicator they don't actually understand what a scientific theory actually is.
Yes, you don't see many people saying that things like gravity, magnetism and combustion are "just a theory" even though that's precisely what they are.
I think Professor Cox annoys me in the same way Richard Dawkins and a lot of other scientists and academics do.....
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time, they aren't really willing to accept a different view or especially anything wildly different from their viewpoint.
It's not that I dislike any of them, and they do a lot of good work in explaining things in terms most people will understand. It's just that in terms of accepting other ideas, they are just as blinkered by what they accept as truth as the people on the opposite side of the fence.
As I said before, I only really noticed this with Brian Cox when I started reading his Twitter posts....
I'm a fan of Brian Cox's viewpoint of having no time for "Did man actually live on the moon?" and "see the future in the constellations" (woo woo as he calls it!). He is more vocal about these things on The Infinite Monkey Cage - which is a great show BTW.
Theory (in the context of science) does not mean "hunch" or "guess". A theory is actually something very concrete, there's no such thing as "scientific fact" (except in common speech), it's ALL theory. For instance, things over which there is no controversy, such as our understanding of electricity is also theory. Despite this, these theories have resulted in the development of things like light switches and computers which pretty much cement the point that theory != guess.
A theory is not a belief. Religious belief is not equal to theory, because theory is something that is testable (and importantly) falsifiable. Scientific theory is not static, either. While some theory hasn't changed in many years, others are continuously being refined through the scientific process.
Whenever someone says "Well X is just a theory" in the context of some piece of science (especially when trying to make some (almost always religious) counter argument) it is an almost 100% reliable indicator they don't actually understand what a scientific theory actually is.
Totally agree. Newton's theory of gravity was always a "theory" until a more accurate "theory" came along vis a vis General Relativity. Doesn't mean they are not useful or even "wrong".
Free Online Dictionary's definition of a theory: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ....
sums it up well.
I like Brian Cox - he has the ability to dumb down which most clever people struggle with. He might be dumbing down too much, but that would be under instructions from the BBC.
Exactly. If you want something un-dumbed-down read his (and Jeff Forshaw's) Quantum Mechanics book. Aimed a bit lower is the same authors' Why does e=mc^2. That book gives a particularly good explanation as to why the somewhat contrived light clocks beloved of Special Relativity are as good as any other clock. It gets a bit hand-wavy when General Relativity comes along. But that is proper hard!
The Wonders... series are aimed further below that, but at least they get people interested.
I can see that making a comparison to Richard Dawkins has seemed to make people misunderstand what I was trying to say. I'm well aware that most scientific theories have enough provable evidence to be considered inarguable...
I'm also aware that stuff like Most Haunted is most certainly people running around in the dark getting frightened by dust particles, imaginery friends and producers kicking tables...
The incident that made me make comparisons between Cox and Dawkins was when someone suggested there should be a new proper study into ghosts to discover once and for all why so many people experience them and what they actually are...be it spirits of the dead or just being wrong in the head!
Professor Cox then proceeded to go on what can only be described as a rant, saying there's no such thing, it'd be stupid to waste time and then called anyone who believed in ghosts an idiot.
The point I'm trying to make, is that he has very strong personal beliefs about what a ghost actually is, and has basically drawn a line under that and will not accept any other viewpoint. That's entirely up to him...
What I disliked was his attitude and the manner in which he mocked and fired abuse at the person who suggested ghosts might exist somehow....an attitude I've seen repeated against even other respected scientists views in some of his other tweets. Then he goes off to hunt for a particle which may or may not exist...
The incident that made me make comparisons between Cox and Dawkins was when someone suggested there should be a new proper study into ghosts to discover once and for all why so many people experience them and what they actually are...be it spirits of the dead or just being wrong in the head!
He's right!
What I disliked was his attitude and the manner in which he mocked and fired abuse at the person who suggested ghosts might exist somehow....an attitude I've seen repeated against even other respected scientists views in some of his other tweets. Then he goes off to hunt for a particle which may or may not exist...
At the same time, there has to be a reason why so much money and effort has been spent on proper scientists working to prove the particle exists (or not), but not spent on proving ghosts??
The incident that made me make comparisons between Cox and Dawkins was when someone suggested there should be a new proper study into ghosts to discover once and for all why so many people experience them and what they actually are...be it spirits of the dead or just being wrong in the head!
Why don't the people who suggest it put up some funding and do a proper study then?
If they find concrete evidence they could claim a big cash prize.
On the other hand, perhaps the reason no-one has ever done such a study is that there is nothing to study and ghosts are entirely fictional...
OT now, but I've seen a photo with a ghost in it taken by a guy I used to work with at Glastonbury festival. There's no way this old guy with a cap and walking stick could appear in the photo in the position he does, relative to the ground/stage/crowd etc. Unfortunately you would have to see the photo to see what I mean and I've lost contact with the guy who took it. we spent about an hour trying to come up with an explanation at the time though lol
OT now, but I've seen a photo with a ghost in it taken by a guy I used to work with at Glastonbury festival. There's no way this old guy with a cap and walking stick could appear in the photo in the position he does, relative to the ground/stage/crowd etc. Unfortunately you would have to see the photo to see what I mean and I've lost contact with the guy who took it. we spent about an hour trying to come up with an explanation at the time though lol
OT now, but I've seen a photo with a ghost in it taken by a guy I used to work with at Glastonbury festival. There's no way this old guy with a cap and walking stick could appear in the photo in the position he does, relative to the ground/stage/crowd etc. Unfortunately you would have to see the photo to see what I mean and I've lost contact with the guy who took it. we spent about an hour trying to come up with an explanation at the time though lol
usually ghosts live in hotels and pubs, and other places that have a convivial atomsphere.
the photo was prolly of a spirit, but without it there isn't proof.
Comments
That is another Brian Cox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(actor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)
"All the people who are cleverer than me" is quite a large set. Fortunately, I have a lot of jealousy and anger to spread around... :D
ya mean Brian glover R.I.P from the classic that is Kes surely ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3cayRMnVb8
I can only assume that either:-
1. All female scientists are quite hot.
2. They don't let the ug-bugs on the telly.
Conversely, there is a fairly high grey-hair and brown corduroy quotient among the male scientists that appear.
Hmmm... curious.
So why are university students always so keen on mass debates?
I like Brian Cox - he has the ability to dumb down which most clever people struggle with. He might be dumbing down too much, but that would be under instructions from the BBC. Dara is massively intelligent too and dumbs down to a comedic level - and therefore rarely shows how clever he is, but he's confident with it.
I don't think he's smug - I think he's shy, and has to think carefully about what he says so he doesn't get blank looks back!
Those of us with higher intelligence tend to be sexy. Live with it dummy :razz:
They have their beliefs about things and how they work, and although they are dealing with theories and conjecture a lot of the time, they aren't really willing to accept a different view or especially anything wildly different from their viewpoint.
It's not that I dislike any of them, and they do a lot of good work in explaining things in terms most people will understand. It's just that in terms of accepting other ideas, they are just as blinkered by what they accept as truth as the people on the opposite side of the fence.
As I said before, I only really noticed this with Brian Cox when I started reading his Twitter posts....
Different views like what though? Any real scientist understands that we don't know everything and we have to alter our view of the world when presented with evidence contrary to our current understanding.
Dawkins annoys me too, but it's not because he's a scientist :)
When you have a proof of a theory there really is no room for any other "viewpoint" no matter how wild it may seem. They are scientists. This is how they roll.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Now there have been some remarkable innovations and inventions by what are often termed 'amateurs', but these are still people who have had enough respect to at least read up on a subject before trying their own spin on it, instead of just watching a bit of telly and thinking they now know more than anyone. For all the religious nutters who would have Darwin strung up for his heresy, I've not met a single one who genuinely grasps the theory of evolution by natural selection before having a pop at it.
For example, there's a significant difference between hunting for a dwarf planet that gravitational models suggest might be tugging on the ones we can see, or the Higgs Boson when plenty of other observations and calculations (by smart people who check each others' work) indicate there's a common unknown factor just beyond the reach of the instruments, and going ghost-hunting with a known fraudulent self-acclaimed spiritualist because some D-list coke-addled f*ckwit 'celebrity' claims their granny always got a funny feeling in the basement.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
That tells me you don't know the difference between 'conjecture' and a 'theory'. What a 'theory' is, and what your 'alternative viewpoint' is not, is backed up by considerable peer-reviewed evidence. When you can come up with more substantiated evidence for your viewpoint than someone else has for theirs, then they should listen. When it's just some rot someone made up with nothing much to back it up, why should anyone listen?
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I hate anything he does as a voice over or prerecorded, though. The delivery of his lines are overly dramatic... almost... like... listening... to... Shatner. But with an added Wow this is amazing factor. I can't describe it adequately. I know it irritates the heck of out of me.
Some say he should be the next presenter of the Sky at night. Piffle. I'd vote Brian May for that.
Theory (in the context of science) does not mean "hunch" or "guess". A theory is actually something very concrete, there's no such thing as "scientific fact" (except in common speech), it's ALL theory. For instance, things over which there is no controversy, such as our understanding of electricity is also theory. Despite this, these theories have resulted in the development of things like light switches and computers which pretty much cement the point that theory != guess.
A theory is not a belief. Religious belief is not equal to theory, because theory is something that is testable (and importantly) falsifiable. Scientific theory is not static, either. While some theory hasn't changed in many years, others are continuously being refined through the scientific process.
Whenever someone says "Well X is just a theory" in the context of some piece of science (especially when trying to make some (almost always religious) counter argument) it is an almost 100% reliable indicator they don't actually understand what a scientific theory actually is.
Yes, you don't see many people saying that things like gravity, magnetism and combustion are "just a theory" even though that's precisely what they are.
I'm a fan of Brian Cox's viewpoint of having no time for "Did man actually live on the moon?" and "see the future in the constellations" (woo woo as he calls it!). He is more vocal about these things on The Infinite Monkey Cage - which is a great show BTW.
Totally agree. Newton's theory of gravity was always a "theory" until a more accurate "theory" came along vis a vis General Relativity. Doesn't mean they are not useful or even "wrong".
Free Online Dictionary's definition of a theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ....
sums it up well.
Exactly. If you want something un-dumbed-down read his (and Jeff Forshaw's) Quantum Mechanics book. Aimed a bit lower is the same authors' Why does e=mc^2. That book gives a particularly good explanation as to why the somewhat contrived light clocks beloved of Special Relativity are as good as any other clock. It gets a bit hand-wavy when General Relativity comes along. But that is proper hard!
The Wonders... series are aimed further below that, but at least they get people interested.
I'm also aware that stuff like Most Haunted is most certainly people running around in the dark getting frightened by dust particles, imaginery friends and producers kicking tables...
The incident that made me make comparisons between Cox and Dawkins was when someone suggested there should be a new proper study into ghosts to discover once and for all why so many people experience them and what they actually are...be it spirits of the dead or just being wrong in the head!
Professor Cox then proceeded to go on what can only be described as a rant, saying there's no such thing, it'd be stupid to waste time and then called anyone who believed in ghosts an idiot.
The point I'm trying to make, is that he has very strong personal beliefs about what a ghost actually is, and has basically drawn a line under that and will not accept any other viewpoint. That's entirely up to him...
What I disliked was his attitude and the manner in which he mocked and fired abuse at the person who suggested ghosts might exist somehow....an attitude I've seen repeated against even other respected scientists views in some of his other tweets. Then he goes off to hunt for a particle which may or may not exist...
He's right!
At the same time, there has to be a reason why so much money and effort has been spent on proper scientists working to prove the particle exists (or not), but not spent on proving ghosts??
I thought k9 was most disappointing. It was some cheap graphic with some fake voice.
The discussion segment was a bit haphazard, Id have rather seen more of first part.
Why don't the people who suggest it put up some funding and do a proper study then?
If they find concrete evidence they could claim a big cash prize.
On the other hand, perhaps the reason no-one has ever done such a study is that there is nothing to study and ghosts are entirely fictional...
if you dont think ghosts exist, explain this!!
oh wait thats the wrong photo, i meant this one
rofl :)
Obviously it's a fake; we can tell this because the beams have crossed and they're not all passed out. :-)
Double exposure? :)
usually ghosts live in hotels and pubs, and other places that have a convivial atomsphere.
the photo was prolly of a spirit, but without it there isn't proof.