Showing posts with label skeptically speaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skeptically speaking. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Holiday Christmas Shopping - Scienterrific Books!!!

I mentioned previously that I was going to be a guest on Skeptically Speaking again.  The live show was Friday, and is now available for download with links to all the many books discussed.

As always the show was fun to be on.  I wish we could have got more discussion in than we did, but it was a very full show as it was.

I often come out the other end of these events feeling like I was at best a shotgun of information.  Perhaps I had some impact if I was aimed at the appropriate target, but even then I was all over the place.  So I figured I'd take a little bit of time to mention my books (as well as the books I had on my shortlist that other guests spoke about.

When I was asked to be on the show I polled some friends as to what books I should talk about.  Only one made the final list, but several appeared on my shortlist and I'll touch on them below.  I automatically nixed all Sagan books.  I figured he was a shoe in - and sure enough two Sagan books were mentioned by other guests.  Contact and Demon Haunted World.  I also considered the Cosmos companion, and Broca's Brain.

First up, my actual four picks for the show:

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

I mentioned on the show that when I was asked to do the show I polled a few friends to see what they came up with.  I actually didn't use a single one of their suggestions except this one - which I had already thought of.  But every single one of them included this in their list.  I was actually surprised that none of the other guests mentioned it.
This is totally gateway-drug territory.  I don't think I've ever read a science book that covers so much in such an enjoyable fashion.  It's very much 'sci-light' but that is it's charm.  Since it's publication it has gone slightly out of date - as I mentioned on the show the first two chapters alone have information that has changed since the book was written, but errata for that and other mistakes is easily available on-line.
While Bryson does get into a patina of explanation of science that ranges from the beginnong of the universe to the evolution of man, the heart of this book is really the stories behind the discoveries.  He delves deep into the quirks of the scientists and the history behind those who made parallel yet unheralded discoveries or those upon whose gigantic shoulders the heros of science stood upon.
It is at the same time funny and fascinating... something I'm informed that Bryson fans find to be his stock-in-trade, though I must admit that after trying several of his other books based on the promise of this one, I haven't found a single other one of his books that I've been able to finish.

The Transparent Society by Dr. David Brin

David Brin is serious man-crush territory for me.  I think he is the greatest living science fiction writer, he maintains an excellent blog, and YouTube channel, has a resume that includes CalTech and the JPL, had the jam to follow in Asimov's shoes and (ulp!) contribute to the Foundation series, and building upon the thinking in the Transparent Society has become one of the world's leading voices in the on-going discussion about privacy, transparency and freedom.

I hardly know where to begin with this book. It covers a lot of territory and it's hard for me to talk about it without drifting into my own feelings about the issues herein.  Some of it is scary - but that is exactly why it is important.  Being over 12 years old by now there are parts of this book that are self-evident - but that is part of it's strength.  You find yourself looking at the things he has got right and considering the portions that most rub you the wrong way with greater gravity.

I think this book is important to a world that is filled with citizens in denial and/or paranoia and not enough in a well reasoned middle.

Wikipedia sums it up with quotes from Brin, that the book is ultimately a proponent of a world where:
"most of the people, knowing most of what's going on, most of the time," would only be an extension of what already gave us the Enlightenment, freedom and privacy. By comparison, he asks what the alternative would be: "To pass privacy laws that will be enforced by elites, and trust them to refrain from looking at us?"
Brin is also the originator of the term "citokate" (I've lost track of whether it came from Trasparent Society or his blog first.) Which every skeptic should have in their vocabulary.

Arcadia by Tom Stoppard

The thing about Arcadia that I most failed to illuminate on the show is that it is a work of such rich complexity that subsequent readings (or viewings - it is a play, after all) never fail to open up new layers of understanding.
Tom Stoppard is one of the truly most amazing playwrights of our time.  While the average Jane may not be familiar with his name, they more than likely know of a film he won an Academy Award for - Shakespeare in Love.  The whimsical, multi-faceted treatment he gives the Bard is akin to the reverence he gives mathematics (and thermo-dynamics, and chaos, and fluid-dynamics, and determinism, and and and....) in Arcadia.
The play actually takes place in two times (but the same place) simultaneously at a country house in Derbyshire, as a set of modern academics attempt to untie the events of roughly a 180 years previously which the audience is also party to and see unfold in tandem.  All kinds of clever elements connect both times, but the favourite has got to be one of the simplest - a live pet turtle who roams freely on the desk that makes up the primary set-piece.  The turtle is the same one in each time-period, simply 180 years difference in it's age.
No real spoilers here - this is a play that needs to be discovered.  And should it coax you to explore the nature of re-iterative mathematics in the process, so much the better.

The Physics of the Buffyverse - by Jennifer Ouellette

Here's another excellent gateway-drug book.  I suppose it's rather self-evident that being a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan is a useful prerequisite (though I suppose not entirely necessary - but one would have to ask "why would you bother?") to reading this book.  In fact, a warning is certainly in order.  If you are a Buffy fan who is not complete on the two TV series (the comic books do not factor) then this book will spoil key plot details right through to the final season of each, and it won't waste much time getting around to doing so, so don't even tease yourself it you are serious about not getting spoiled.

I think I may have done this book a disservice on the show.  Like Brief History... it is pretty much sci-light.  But Ouellette does a better job of getting into the finer points of the science science she covers than Bryson does.  I know a fair bit of general science, and I learned from this book.  Sometimes the Buffy-based examples actually give a perspective that helps clarify some details of physics that isn't quite so intuitive, and in other cases I simply learned some basic trivia facts that had previously passed me by - for example, I had no idea that elements above Iron were heavier than their atomic number, while those below were lighter.

In Buffy-speak: This book is big on the easy-learny.

Which brings us to the other books of note...

I included Imagining Head-Smashed-In by Jack Brink in my end-of-show honourable mentions.  Very cool book.  Sort of forensic archeological historic storytelling about the buffalo hunters of the Northern Great Plains - specifically at Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump.

My fellow live panellists (as opposed to the pre-recorded ones - the other possible parsing of that phrase is too much to bear) each chose a book I want to single out.

Nicole Gugliucci - the Noisy Astronomer - selected Dr. Phil Plait's Death from the Skies, which is a metric fuck-ton of awesome. It's the book that inspired Dr. Plait's TV show Bad Universe and is one of those rare laugh out loud science books.  He looks at a dozen aspects of astronomy through the lens of a Hollywood conceit - "the world is going to end because of 'X'" - and then looks at the real science behind it.  For a related  but entirely separate taste, check out his analysis of Armageddon. Indeed I had this book on my original four list, but figured the astronomer should get to talk about the astronomy book, so I put up no fight and replaced it with Arcadia.

Dana Blumrosen chose The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, which I haven't read, but has been on a long list of "I must get around to reading that" titles since I heard about it and Henrietta Lacks on Radio Lab's (which everyone should listen to) Famous Tumors episode.

One of the pre-recorded bits featured books I had on my short list: Daniel Loxton's Evolution.  It was the first book I bought my daughter.  She's still too young for it at three... months.  But all in good time.  Last week I was in Washington DC and was at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.  And there in the book store was Evolution.  I took a picture and posted it to Facebook.  It was the first that Daniel had heard of it being for sale there.  Good news for him.

Also relating to Daniel, I disqualified one of my orignal short-list picks - Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, in part because it was fiction (Though that didn't stop me from replacing Death from the Skies with Arcadia.) and in part because Daniel recently discussed it in pretty much the same context I felt qualified it.

Once we went off the air I thought of three more books that I wish I had thought of bringing up in my honourable mentions.

As a memorial to Benoit Mandlebrot I could have mentioned Chaos by James Gleick which was pretty much the first hard science book I ever tackled (and loved and was fascinated by) and arguably resulted in me being the science advocate I am today.  Most skeptics get Demon Haunted World.  I get Gleick.  I didn't choose it as I haven't read it in nearly twenty years and that makes me rusty enough that I didn't feel confident in my ability to talk about it for four minutes.
One book several of my polled friends came up with was Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.  This has been on my "I must get around to reading that" list forever and I actually bought a copy in hopes of being able to read it in time for the show... but I only got about a quarter of the way in.  It is fascinating thus far, but I didn't feel like I should champion something I hadn't really grokked.

Lastly, was another book I hadn't read, but was on the "I must get around to reading that" list.  I was reminded about it on my Smithsonian trip, in this case at the Air and Space Museum.  Gene Krantz's Failure is Not an Option.  Krantz is ther Ed Harris character from Apollo 13 - do I need to say more?  Tell me that isn't going to be an amazing auto biography.

So, there you have it.  I doubt that at this late date that'll help anyone make a good Christmas gift-pick for someone... unless you're grabbing me a copy of Failure is Not an Option... but I felt like a bit more effort, detail and illumination was in order.  Not just the scatter-gun effect.

Happy Jesuspalooza, everyone!

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

From the Dust of the Skeptical Smackdown...

Okay, so the room was too small (as is becoming the case regularly at Vancouver Skeptics in the Pub); and we had some audio-visual issues; and we practically abandoned the Skype connection after the initial video-call to Edmonton; the Edmonton co-host got sick and didn't show up; the Edmonton host had to leave after the first round - leaving a newly appointed co-host to finish up; and we had enough people show up late in Vancouver to make up an entire new team... but I think that it was a wild success on our end.

I am talking about the Western Canadian Skeptical Smackdown which was held last night in Edmonton and Vancouver.

Desiree Schell of Skeptically Speaking was the Edmonton host, and I was the quiz-master in Vancouver.

There was definitely some learning on the organizers' part... for example, I discovered that the two or three trick questions were not a good idea... particularly when one of the rules is that the "Quiz Master is always right, even when they are wrong."  The rule is in place so that we don't lose a bunch of time quibbling about answers that are almost right; or having to go on the internet to double check answers.  A lot of time was put into getting the answers right, but I feel admit that there was one answer right at the end that was debatable... it came across as a trick question to those who really knew their stuff, resulting in 'wrong' answers that were still really good answers.  My bad... but, c'mon - there were 88 questions!  Having one debatable one seems pretty solid to me.  :-P

If anyone wants me to send them the questions so that they can run their own quiz - by all means!  I'll even tweak the language on the debatable question, so that there is no debate.  Fair warning... while there are some questions that should be easy for any skeptical/scientific crowd & every question was answered correctly by someone... there are some really tough questions.  Even the top scoring team only barely cracked 75% and roughly one third of the teams didn't get more than 50%.  (Indeed, one answer sheet - from a team that placed in the top 5! - came back at the end of the night with the message "WTF guys?!? This is Hard. SRSLY!"  And so it should have been - everyone had to work for every point.

There were three different cross-provincial challenges going on, as well as one in each city.

Boasting privledges go to:

- The top scoring team.
- The highest overall team score out of both cities.
- Each city's Skeptical Radio show (Skeptically Speaking and Radio Free Thinkers) challenged each other.
- Desiree and I each chose a "Champion" to represent us before we started.

As my Champion Team I chose the team that named itself "Big Wang Theory" - it was a pretty terrifying looking team from the outset, comprised of: Paul Ingraham - Skeptical (ex) Massage Therapist; Rob Tarzwell - An increasingly well known doctor and skeptic in Canada; Robert Light - whose research as a playwright into the life of Charles Darwin is truly staggering; and Fred Bremmer... who just might be skepticism's ultimate fanboy (and whose photos adorn this post).


Speaking of being represented by a champion...

Due to the quality of our video Skype connection I didn't clearly get what Des's Champion team was, but I shall update here as soon as I can confirm it with her.  She did point to the literal "Far Table"... so I am going to assume that the team she picked was the one named "The Far Table" in Edmonton's results.

At the end of the first round, Big Wang Theory was ahead of all teams. 

By the end of the second round (a misleading name as there was a paper-round between the two rounds) an Edmonton team had pulled into the lead by 1 and 1/2 points.
Going into round three, (by which point Edmonton had got well ahead of Vancouver as we were slowed by the added logistics of having 9 teams crowded into too small a space) Radio Free Thinkers had to get a minimum of 6 and 1/2 points to beat the Skeptically Speaking team.

When all was said and done, the final standings (out of 88 points) from both cities were as follows:

  • (VAN) Big Wang Theory - 67.5
  • (VAN) Goats on Fire (The CFI Team) - 60.5 
  • (EDM) Climate Cover Up - 53.5
  • (VAN) Radio Free Thinkers - 51.5
  • (EDM) Skeptically Speaking - 49.5
  • (EDM) The Shock Collars - 49
  • (VAN) Still Thinking - 45
  • (VAN) Pacific Spirits - 44.5
  • (VAN) Funky Debunkers - 43
  • (VAN) 3 Girls and a Dummy - 40.5
  • (VAN) Psychic Energy - 40.5
  • (VAN) Can We Have a Minute? - 37
  • (EDM) The Far Table - 35.5
I am looking forward to the Big Wang Theory coming back to defending it's title next year... when there will hopefully be more teams from Edmonton as well as teams East of the 100th meridian involved too.  Then we can drop the "Western" qualifier from the Quiz's title.


"Western Canadian Skeptical Smackdown" Champions:
"The Big Wang Theory"
Rob Tarzwell, Rob Light, Paul Ingraham, Fred Bremmer

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Pony Up for Science


The pockets of skepticism, despite the optics of things like the Million Dollar Challenge and the Australian Skeptics' benefactor, are quite shallow. Unlike organizations like the Discovery Institute which are funded by a variety of creationist organizations (I.E. Churches.).
One of our best avenues for public outreach has proven to be podcasts. There is a metric fuckton of skeptical podcasts out there. Some are fantastic like the mighty Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, some are extremely niche like Monster Talk, some are dubiously skeptical (at best) like Skeptiko. But even the best and mightiest of them are done on shoe-string budgets, because the money just isn't there. Do any skeptical podcast hosts or producers get paid for their efforts? No. (At least I don't think so, and in any case the vast majority don't.) The shows themselves barely get along with the meagre support of the proverbial 'people like you.'

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Skeptically Speaking Interview

Just a quick post to point out that my interview on Skeptically Speaking has been posted for download.

New posts after the weekend, for now I'm swaiting with baited breath for the on-again off-again feed fromn Skeptrack at DragonCon to give me cool insights.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Further thoughts on Future Musings

(Cross posted on The Truth & The Signal.)

Back on Monday I pre-recorded an interview for Skeptically Speaking that will air this Friday... hence the post title... I haven't publicly said the things that this post is a development of....

It was a fun interview, though plagued with technical difficulties - if you are a regular listener of the show I should clarify that I don't mean that in the sense of how the show is infamously plagued by technical difficulties. We (by which I mean Des, the host, and I) evaded the typical difficulties by pre-taping the interview. Des is going to be at Dragon Con, so both of us would have been remote... it would have been too easy to lose both of us.
The technical details we had were more due to the fact that by not being live the pressure was off so neither of us was as 'on' as we might otherwise have been. As a result we ended up re-recording an awful lot. I even deliberately said 'fuck' once so that she would have to start again when her tongue was getting tied. We also got into a lot of laughing. I'm hoping that the final edit will be as fun as we had.

Fun or not I did have some staircase wisdom on the matter.

One of the things that we talked about was how saturated the acting community is with new-age thinking. Ugh. The answer is "Far too saturated." Which is not to say I am alone as a critical-thinker in the acting community. Whew! But lame-assed hippy-dippy earth-mother beliefs are far too common.

I've been in far too many productions with people who wanted to "share our energy" on stage. Whatever. Yeah, I know there is a rush that we get when a show is really clicking. It's a lot of fun. But that's not 'energy' - its endorphins... or some other chemical in our body. Okay, I don't personally know the exact hormone that is triggering us. Adrenaline maybe? In any case, not knowing the specifics doesn't actually make me wrong and the woo-eaters who thrive on building our collective conscious on stage correct.

I've heard it all.

The 100 monkeys theory has been brought up as an explanation for shows really working. Huh? Not only is the 100 monkeys effect bullshit in the first place, but even if it were... the cast was considerably short of 100 people. There were three of us, and sadly even if you counted the audience there were too few. But even so... how the hell do monkeys downstream learning a task through spontaneous telepathy explain actors clicking on stage? AUGH! I nearly married that woman... sometimes I am an idiot too.

I do have my own set of flakiness I admit. When I'm doing a really intense role I prefer to be left the fuck alone. I'm one of those annoying pricks who don't want to be disturbed. Don't talk to me, don't bother me with stuff that has nothing to do with what is about to happen on stage, or after the show. I also tend to live bits and pieces of the character in real life. I once played a serial killer (in a comedy, no less) for a summer, and by the end I was not a pleasant person to be around... though no bodies showed up.... yet. I played a Jew who was ostracized in Nazi Germany and I ended up ostracizing myself from the rest of the cast. I played a simple minded and insane chicken farmer... my already teetering relationship at the time didn't survive that one - though I ended up being nominated for a local award for the performance.

Once, in a particularly complex and intense show - George F. Walker's Theatre of the Film Noir - I was playing Bernard, a homosexual who had pushed his mind past the brink while narrowly surviving the Nazi occupation of Paris; one of my cast-mates decided that everyone of us should hold hands and stand quietly together through intermission in order to (you guessed it) preserve our energy. I lasted about as long as it took for him to suggest the idea. The best way for me to 'preserve my energy' was to stand in a dark corner alone and spit venom over his stupid idea. I got the impression that me walking away was all it took to trigger at least one other cast member to follow suit. (I am not entirely alone.) I took great pleasure that night in "killing" his character. Ah, method.

Amongst the worst... or best, depending on your interpretation... examples would be my first acting teacher in university, Linda Hardy, Assistant Professor and flake of top-degree. I recall a class where she told us with great reverence how important it was to the world that there were Universities that were granting doctorates of parapsychology. That it was such a coup that the paranormal had finally gained academic respectability. Is it any wonder that so many artists are woo-munchers when this is the kind of mentors they have?

I was always a little incensed that I was expected to pay money to sit in this woman's classes. We spent weeks of our first term exploring how acting through our various chakras affected our performances, and character presentation. It was this that I glancingly referenced in the Skeptically Speaking interview.

There was some severe priming going on in these exercises.
Linda would talk about our fight or flight response and then we'd "breathe through our solar-plexus chakra". The class would then walk around and respond organically to whatever was on their mind... and no one would turn their back on another unless it was to bolt to the opposite side of the room at top speed. We hardly needed any priming beyond our natural 17 year-old associations when she told us to "breathe through our coccyx" and before you knew it class members were rubbing up against each other in the biggest theatre-school cliche since Fame. Who was I to scoff at that particular part of the exercise? It was ridiculous.

I just did a quick back of the napkin calculation. If I took the same course today I would be paying nearly $300 worth of my tuition to play imaginary games for the first third of my semester. What a rip-off!

And what practical purpose were we to put this to?

"Well, dearies..." (I am channelling Linda through my asshole chakra right now - that's where the energy for total crap comes from.) "...say for example you were playing the part of Prospero, a richly spiritual and wise man. You could channel your performance through your brow and crown chakras to bring into your spirit the energy of magic and intellect that form the core of his being."
Yeah... or you could act.

"Using your chakras you can bring the embodiment of any character you desire into yourself and find their voice within you."
So why then, Linda, is it that every time you act you perform in the vapid and shallow voice of the lead character in a Shirley MacLaine auto-biography?

I think next time I get cast in something, I'm going get my inspiration from science to create a performance of infinite depth and mind-boggling complexity by basing my character on the Mandelbrot Set.




Postscript: I actually did a lot of reading into math when at university. I have an incident seared into my memory where when playing some kind of "Who am I now?" type party game at one of our theatre department parties that someone in the department got angry when I 'was' Rene Levesque. "You can't always be obscure mathematicians Kennedy!" For those non-Canadians and for those too young to recall who didn't click the link, Rene Levesque was a (pretty much, THE) prominent Quebec Sovereigntist leader of the 70s.... sigh no joke that you have to explain is funny.
In the previous round I actually had been Benoit Mandelbrot, so apart from not knowing her Canadian history she wasn't exactly wrong.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Upcoming Guest on Skeptically Speaking

I'm going to be a guest on Skeptically Speaking this week, but due to a bunch of factors (they're having technical issues in the studio & the host is going to DragonCon) they aren't doing the interview as one of their normal call-in shows.

We are pre-recording the interview without any random listener questions. We're doing that on Monday evening (Aug 31st).

It would be cool if we had some email questions though...

Here's the preview of the show:
"Kennedy Goodkey, one of the actors in the new independent movie The Beast of Bottomless Lake will discuss Ogopogo, being a skeptic in the not-so-skeptical acting community,and what it’s like to shoot a movie in a town where the tourism industry is built on the perpetuation of a myth."

If anyone can come up with a question, go to their home page and email it in to the show.

http://skepticallyspeaking.com/episodes/23-the-skeptical-actor

We may well touch on Asshole Skepticism as Desiree was there in Las Vegas as I was really starting to feel it out - and she was there for one of the more (ahem) interesting early moments... but I'll get to that in good time.


Thanks in advance!