| Steven Pinker is Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at http://www.mit.edu/%7epinker/ Harvard University. For more info go to www.meaningoflife.tv. | |
Sunday 31 December 2006
Steven Pinker
Read this and make a decision
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has release a comprehensive study of the livestock industry.
The livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent -- 18% -- than transport.Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33% of the global arable land, [which is] used to produce feed for livestock
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs.
Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20% percent of all terrestrial animal biomass.
Meat and diary animals, our pets and humans make up 98% of land vertebrates.
Full report and summary here.
My suggestion - eat low on the food chain.
Best Summary of Sustainable Energy Ever!
Listen to this presentation by Nate Lewis if you want to learn something about sustainable energy. Best single discussion I have heard on the subject.
Listen to a streaming audio version of this presentation.
Download the Powerpoint Presentation.
Download the transcript of an earlier version of this talk.
Watch the Caltech Streaming Theater presentation on 56k, Broadband, or Cable/DSL connection.
(requires Real Audio Player, a free download HERE)
Below is a summary of the discussion taken from http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mmrc/nslenergy/.
The Lewis Group
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
Scientific Challenges in Sustainable Energy Technology
This presentation will describe and evaluate the challenges, both technical, political, and economic, involved with widespread adoption of renewable energy technologies.
- First, we estimate the available fossil fuel resources and reserves based on data from the World Energy Assessment and World Energy Council. In conjunction with the current and projected global primary power production rates, we then estimate the remaining years of supply of oil, gas, and coal for use in primary power production. We then compare the price per unit of energy of these sources to those of renewable energy technologies (wind, solar thermal, solar electric, biomass, hydroelectric, and geothermal) to evaluate the degree to which supply/demand forces stimulate a transition to renewable energy technologies in the next 20-50 years.
- Secondly, we evaluate the greenhouse gas buildup limitations on carbon-based power consumption as an unpriced externality to fossil-fuel consumption, considering global population growth, increased global gross domestic product, and increased energy efficiency per unit of globally averaged GDP, as produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A greenhouse gas constraint on total carbon emissions, in conjunction with global population growth, is projected to drive the demand for carbon-free power well beyond that produced by conventional supply/demand pricing tradeoffs, at potentially daunting levels relative to current renewable energy demand levels.
- Thirdly, we evaluate the level and timescale of R&D investment that is needed to produce the required quantity of carbon-free power by the 2050 timeframe, to support the expected global energy demand for carbon-free power.
- Fourth, we evaluate the energy potential of various renewable energy resources to ascertain which resources are adequately available globally to support the projected global carbon-free energy demand requirements.
- Fifth, we evaluate the challenges to the chemical sciences to enable the cost-effective production of carbon-free power on the needed scale by the 2050 timeframe.
- Finally, we discuss the effects of a change in primary power technology on the energy supply infrastructure and discuss the impact of such a change on the modes of energy consumption by the energy consumer and additional demands on the chemical sciences to support such a transition in energy supply.
Thursday 14 December 2006
The Mass Media: Point vs. Counterpoint
All news contains an argument. I am sick of the mainstream media's ideal of objectivity. They aren't objective. They're presentation contains an argument, even if it is implicit. Honest argument is explicit.
Coverage of warfare is the worst. Warfare is not fought 'for freedom' or some such hogwash. War is power-politics. So where is the analysis in terms of power politics?
Instead of analysis & argument
we get point vs. counterpoint.
we get point vs. counterpoint.
wiki on Media bias:
One technique used to avoid bias is the "point/counterpoint" or "round table," an adversarial format in which representatives of opposing views comment on an issue. This approach theoretically allows diverse views to appear in the media. However, the person organizing the report still has the responsibility to choose people who really represent the breadth of opinion, to ask them non-prejudicial questions, and to edit or arbitrate their comments fairly. When done carelessly, a point/counterpoint can be as unfair as a simple biased report, by suggesting that the "losing" side lost on its merits.
The Skeptics Society has accused reporters of misusing the point/counterpoint format by giving more time to superstitions than to their scientific rebuttals.
Using this format can also lead to accusations that the reporter has created a misleading appearance that viewpoints have equal validity (sometimes called "false balance"). This may happen when a taboo exists around one of the viewpoints, or when one of the representatives habitually makes claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.
and wiki on False balance:
False balance can sometimes originate from similar motives as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful to pursue than a more accurate account of the issue. However, unlike most other media biases, false balance may actually stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly -- i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance -- with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information.
Click here
for a shocking study (Click here for the fallout) done by FAIR on PBS's NewsHour Study. I also liked the selection of viewers comments. I will quote just one example here:
I would like to ask a few questions about the fact that PBS favors Republicans four to one. Sounds like a headline. Was the 2 to 1 Repubs over everyone else reported on that PBS flagship news show? Any idea why not? And why isn't this fact reported anywhere in American mainstream media (you have to go to the Internet and the blogs for that)? If the headline were instead, 'PBS Favors Dems 4 to 1', the Republican echo machine, er, 'Media', would make sure everyone heard about it 24-7. Wouldn't they?Cambridge, MA
I am one of those people who used to make an effort to get home on time for the "NewsHour." In the last few years, I have gradually detached myself from the program, and now I know why. As a minority, I have been less and less interested in the choice of guests and the "balanced" views expressed on the show. I expect something different from the NewsHour. I wish it had more objective non-partisan analysis, and less of the "fair and balanced" nonsense we can watch at other stations.Maria Barbosa, Frederick, MD
I am really sick and tired of seeing pro-administration, pro-corporate people on the "NewsHour." Where are the women, the peace activists, the feminists, the Greens, the Democrats, the brown people? The other night I had the misfortune to listen to two white guys basically agreeing with each other and both conservative. Who do you want to watch your program?
Judith Salzman, Tucson, AZ
Last letter from a Professor of media studies, Michael Griffin:
Analyses of guest lists on television news programs may be an imperfect method for gauging patterns of news coverage, but it is one of the most reliable and replicable methods for generating comparative data. And while it may not be the best way to catch the fine distinctions and nuances of reporting practices, it is a good tool for monitoring gross patterns of coverage over time, especially when the data show a consistent and clear pattern, with 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 source discrepancies appearing in study after study.
I have looked at the findings of the recent FAIR study of NewsHour guests in 2005-2006. These findings are no surprise, as they parallel the results of numerous other studies of journalism coverage over the last two decades. But they do confirm a serious continuing problem: the tendency of mainstream American journalists to serve as "stenographers to power." It is obvious from the FAIR data, as it has been obvious in numerous previous studies, that the single biggest problem is journalists' heavy over-reliance on official sources. Relying so heavily on sources from government and inside-the-beltway Washington think tanks, as well as favoring corporate business and finance sources over smaller business, regional, local or community voices, inevitably and inescapably skews the reporting we get, both in terms of the information and data that is made available and the news frames within which interviews and discussions on the program take place.
I urge producers, editors and reporters at the NewsHour to seriously rethink their routine daily practices regarding sources and the range of views found on the program. As a long-time NewsHour viewer, a PBS member, and a scholar and close observer of journalism, I find that the FAIR data on guests conforms very closely with my own perceptions of the embedded (albeit presumably unintentional) bias that has characterized NewsHour reporting over the years: the tendency to focus on relatively narrow, establishment-centered frames of reference in the coverage of nearly every issue.
Without the same commercial pressures faced by advertising-sponsored news operations, PBS has the freedom, and the public obligation, to reflect as wide a range of American voices as possible. There is really no excuse for the NewsHour to be serving as a platform for already influential public and business leaders to further disseminate their views.
Michael Griffin, Northfield, MN
Professor of Media Studies, Carleton College
Professor of Media Studies, Carleton College
A good cartoon here:
Deepak doesn't get Buddhism
Deepak doesn't get Buddhism.
Quoting Deepak:
"Yet there is a deeper question lurking here. I may feel that I want a banana, but where did this "I" come from" Maybe it's a delusion as some philosophers and brain scientists assert, since no once has ever found the region of the brain where the personal self resides. Even so, we don't have to take a leap into arch materialism. Buddhists believe that the individual ego is an illusion, and this fact points them toward a universal intelligence (not a personal God) that is consistent with recent neurological findings."
Deepak, the illusion of an individual ego does not necessarily point toward a universal intelligence. It could just as easily point to somewhere else. If someone was schooled in the practice of Pure Land Buddhism, it might point this way:
Thought: I am.
The Thinker: Who is 'I'?
Thought: Wrong question. The right question is What is 'I'?
The Thinker: 'I' is a product of thought. I am the product of thought.
The Thought: I don't make thoughts, but AM thought.
Thought: The thinker is thought.
Thought: Thought is generated by the brain.
Deepak, the 'universal intelligence' is cunning thought spinning a new illusion.
Quick Explanation of Natural Selection (for Deepak Chopra)
Click here for Deepak Chopra's attack on The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.Have you ever heard that evolution is a theory of chance? That's a (big) misunderstanding that many people, including Deepak, make. Or have your heard that there must be a God who made everything because you can't have all this order on earth by chance. Well that's true, it can't be here all by chance. How about how an eye is too complex to have evolved? The theory of evolution by natural selection is an elegant and powerful explanation of how we are all here - with eyes - non randomly and with no magic.
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." Richard Dawkins
Let me unpack that a little for you.
For evolution to occur three factors are required.
1. variation.
2. selection.
3. hereditary.
1. Variation.
Variation is generated randomly by mutation. This is where people get (perhaps understandably) confused. People think evolution is just about the mutation. Mutation can only explain simple changes. Something zigs instead of zags. But that's not the whole story.
2. Selection.
example of how the environment can non-randomly select for and against a property. ImagineSelection is non-random. The environment does the selection. A very simple non-biological you have a bag of flour that has several cups of sand randomly distributed in it. How do you
3. Hereditary.
I won't go into why Dawkins uses the word Replicator, though I think it is an excellent term. Do some research and I'm sure you will agree. I recommend Susan Blackmore's 'The Meme Machine' for an excellent introduction the General Replicator Theory.
The Hereditary principle is just as important as the principle of variation and selection. You really can't understand any of the three principles without seeing how they work together. The Hereditary principle explains how non-randomly selected single mutations can ACCUMULATE 
I hope this has been helpful :)
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/L1/Evolution/l2/eye.html
Friday 1 December 2006
Murder, Death, Kill: Buddhism
A short article by Sam Harris called Killing the Buddha
Sam points out that if the insight and practices of Buddhism are worth a damn, they aren't 'buddhist' anymore than algebra is 'Islamic' or physics is 'Christian'.
Thursday 30 November 2006
The west is not as religious as we think it is... Part 3 - UK
Reposted from http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2288
17 million British Humanists (24/11/06)
(Numbers in brackets below refer to endnotes)
In the 2001 census 7 out of 10 people ticked the ‘Christian’ box but, with church attendance now below 7% (1) and under 1 in 3 marriages taking place in church (2), this figure was clearly more about cultural identity than religious belief (3).
Today an Ipsos MORI poll has shown that 36% of people – equivalent to around 17 million adults – are in fact humanists in their basic outlook.
They:
- feel scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe (rather than feeling that religious beliefs are needed for a ‘complete understanding’)
- believe that ‘right and wrong’ can be explained by human nature alone, and does not necessarily require religious teachings, and
- base their judgments of right and wrong on ‘the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’.
Humanism is a non-religious ethical outlook on life and these answers summarise its key beliefs (click here for more details on Humanism today)
These are the key figures from the poll (the detailed results and further analysis are given here , along with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on how many people believe religious groups and leaders have too much influence on Government ):
- Overall, faced with the choice, 62% said ‘scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe’ against 22% who felt ‘religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe’.
- Similarly, 62% chose ‘Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong’, against 27% who said ‘People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong’.
- In the last question, faced with three choices, 65% said that what is right and wrong ‘depends on the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’. The rest split almost equally between two profoundly un-Humanist views: 15% said right and wrong were ‘basically just a matter of personal preference’ and 13% said what was right and wrong was ‘unchanging and should never be challenged’.
Thirty-six percent chose all three of the Humanist answers, and another 30% chose two out of three. Only 13% chose none of them.
41% believe this is our only life
Another question found that 41% endorsed the strong statement: ‘This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence’. Fractionally more - 45% - preferred the broad view that ‘when we die we go on and still exist in another way’. Of those choosing all three of the ‘Humanist’ answers, 54% said this was our only life, against 38% who believed in some sort of continued existence. And of those seeing this as our only life, 79% chose two or all three of the ‘Humanist’ answers to the other questions. (Interestingly, 22% of those who endorsed the need for religion in answers to other questions also said this was our only life.)
Commentary (for more click here )
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association said, ‘Britain is basically a humanist country, and this poll shows it. We have always been aware that many people who do not identify themselves as humanists, and this includes quite a few people who do not know what Humanism is, live their lives by what one might describe as humanist principles. People who join the Association often tell us that they have been humanists all their lives, or for the last 20 years or so, but didn’t know it. But it is very encouraging to find that 36% of the British population are not simply non-religious, but actually humanist in their outlook and their morality, and that very many others don’t feel they need religion to understand the universe, or to guide their moral decisions. These people may not belong to the Humanist Association, may not have even heard of Humanism, but they share our attitudes and we speak for them in our campaigns.’
For further commentary on the results of the poll from Ms Stinson and from BHA Vice Presidents Claire Rayner, Baroness Whitaker and Richard Norman, along with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on how many people believe religious groups and leaders have too much influence on Government , click here
ENDNOTES
(1) Religious Trends 5: 2005/06, table 2.21
(2) 68% of marriages in 2004 were civil ceremonies - National Statistics
(3) For example it was asked in a context of ethnicity and the question was ‘What is your religion?’, rather than ‘Do you have a religion and if so what is it?’
NOTES TO EDITORS
The British Humanist Association(BHA) represents and supports the non-religious. It is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief, and for a secular state.
For further comment, contact:
Hanne Stinson by email or on 07764 947249
Andrew Copson by email or on 07855 380633
John Leaman (Ipsos MORI) by email or on 020 7347 3000
The following supporters of the British Humanist Association are also available for comment:
Susan Blackmore by email
The west is not as religious as we think it is... Part 2 US
The last elections in the US the least religious voters made the biggest difference to the outcome, as this group gave the Democrats an even greater share of their vote -- 67%, up from 55% in 2002. The Democrats lead over the Republicans from voters who never attend a church rose from 14% in 2002 to a thumping 37% in 2006.
The west is not as religious as we think it is... Part 1 - Australia
Read below for the Summary of the report or click the link for the pdf:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/ccls/spir/sppub/Summary_Report.pdf
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/ccls/spir/sppub/Summary_Report.pdf
MEDIA RELEASE
NATIONAL STUDY OF THE “SPIRITUALITY” OF GENERATION Y COMPLETED
The Spirit of Generation Y project (2003-2006), is a national study of spirituality among Australian young people in their teens and twenties, conducted by researchers from Australian Catholic University, Monash University and the Christian Research Association. The research consisted of a survey of a nationally representative sample of Generation Y (born 1976-1990), with comparison groups from ‘Generation X’ (born 1961-75) and the ‘Baby-Boomer’ generation (born 1946-60), supplemented by extended, face-to-face interviews.
The project explored Generation Y’s range of worldviews and values, their sense of meaning and purpose in life, the ways in which they find peace and happiness, their involvement in traditional religions and alternative spiritualities, how they relate to the society around them, and the influences which shape their outlook and lifestyle.
Key Findings
Belief 48% of Generation Y (Gen Y) believe in a God, 20% do not, and 32% are unsure. Two-thirds of those who do not believe in God, or are uncertain, do believe in a ‘higher being or life-force’.
Spirituality There are three main strands in the ‘spirituality’ of Generation Y: Christian: (44% of Gen Y) Eclectic: (17%) Humanist: (31%)
Christian Only 19% of Gen Y are actively involved in a church to the extent of attending religious services once a month or more; (conservative Protestant denominations—16% of Gen Y—have by far the highest rates of attendance); but many more believe in God and Jesus, and pray regularly. Religion is seen as a private matter, and there is a strong tide of movement among Gen Y Christians away from previous involvement or identification with a church, and even from religious belief.
Eclectic 17 % of Gen Y have an eclectic spirituality, believing in two or more New Age, esoteric or Eastern beliefs (including belief in reincarnation, psychics and fortune tellers, ghosts, astrology) and perhaps engaging in one or more alternative spiritual practices (yoga, Tarot, tai-chi). Some of these people attend religious services but most do not. Such beliefs and practices are more common among young women than young men.
Humanist 31 % of Gen Y can be classified as Humanists, rejecting the idea of God, although a few believe in a ‘higher being’. Of these secular-minded young people, almost half believe that there is very little truth in religion, and less than a quarter believe in life after death. They also largely reject alternative spiritualities.
Social concern Gen Y are not notably more self centred and lacking in altruism than older generations. For example, 27% are involved in some kind of volunteer work per month. Those who are actively involved in service to the community and have positive civic values are far more likely to come from the ranks of those who have spiritual and religious beliefs and actively practise them.
Influences The significant social forces shaping contemporary religion and spirituality – secularisation, the relativism of postmodernity, consumer capitalism, individualism – influence more than Generation Y alone, although young people, by virtue of their age and life stage, are more subject to their effects.
Conclusions:
Generation Y are what their parents and Australian culture have made them. They have taken strongly to two ‘late modern’ principles: that an individual’s views and preferences, provided they harm no-one else, should not be questioned or constrained, and that spiritual/religious beliefs and practices are purely personal lifestyle choices—in no way necessary. Despite moving away in large numbers from traditional religious sources of meaning, they seem to have a strong sense of purpose in their lives. There is no evidence from this project of a widespread plague of meaninglessness or social alienation among Generation Y, nor of a critical lack of social support.Although broader support structures such as church and local community have grown weaker over the last century, families appear to have compensated by increasing the intimacy of family life, and young people also rely more heavily on friendship networks. By these means, Generation Y appear to be successful, for now, in holding at bay the threats to personal security inherent in the much more isolated status of the individual within society.
Much has been written and theorised about the changing spiritual landscape in late modern societies:
the rise of alternative spiritualities, the increasing popularity of the New Age, the attraction of Eastern religions, the development of eclectic ‘mix and match’ spiritualities and the emergence of nature religions and Neo-Paganism. This study did not find that Gen Y are a generation of spiritual seekers; less than one-fifth of Gen Y have a ‘mix and match’ spirituality, while few are seriously exploring alternatives like Buddhism or Wicca.
Many young people in Australia are what we have called Humanists—following an avowedly secular path in life, rejecting belief in God and declaring that there is little truth in any religion, affirming instead human experience, human reason and scientific explanations. Some are angry at or disenchanted with organised religion, but most simply do not care or are not interested. This is not unique to Generation Y; their parents are the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation, 23 percent of whom are Humanists, while a further 24 percent are nominal Christians – people who might maintain a residual belief in God and identify with a denomination, but little more than that. Non-religious young people simply reflect the broader secular context and the spirituality of their own parents.
Summary of the project’s final report (The book version is due out in July, 2007)
A summary report of the project’s findings is available on the website:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/ccls/spir/sppub/sppub.htm
Research team:
Dr. Michael Mason Australian Catholic University
Email: Michael.Mason@acu.edu.au
Assoc Prof Ruth Webber Australian Catholic University
Email: Ruth.Webber@acu.edu.au
Dr. Andrew Singleton, Monash University
Email: Andrew.Singleton@arts.monash.edu.au
Dr. Philip Hughes, Christian Research Association
Email: P.Hughes@cra.org.au
2 Problems: the Sacred in the Secular & Seperate Majesteria
Just finished watching the first quicktime of the Beyond Belief 2006 conference. The collective conversation that occurred there is very important, one of the most important on the planet. I am struck by the advantage in terms of accessibility and speed of transmission of knowledge over the internet, and I feel an attitude (so well by Daniel Dennett recently) of thank Goodness for the internet, and the society that produced it. In a similar way I would like to express gratitude for the work all the people who attended Beyond Belief 2006 are doing. It does not go unappreciated and it provides encouragement to my own actions and efforts.
The purpose of this blog is to attempt to establish communication with you (the reader) on two concerns of mine. I tend to be blunt in written communication, or at least that is the feedback I get from others. I think it is basically because I'm a serious person that uses nonverbal communication to counterbalance (‘soften’) the verbal content and style I naturally use. Of course email lacks this nonverbal component. So I'm trying something a little different in this email and start with a brief disclosure.
Okay, the relevant details about me: I'm 29yo male living in Sydney Australia, studying a double degree in arts (cognitive science) and psychology at the
I share all this in the hope that it provide a context for understanding my following inquiry, perhaps in something like the way information is defined in information theory. I’ll assume you have been exposed to western and eastern philosophy I’m sure you are at least familiar with most of what I’ll refer to, (such as eastern philosophical systems and the works of philosophers of science). I’m hoping that for the sake of brevity I can merely refer to what concerns me, and hopefully we will have enough shared knowledge for communication to occur, with clarification and expansion needing only to be ask for to be provided.
I believe I share a similar attitude toward the teachings of Krishnamurti that many do toward the body of knowledge that is called Buddhism. That is, that what ever its purpose and subject matter, it is completely based on a materialist conception of the universe, that the mind is amazing but not made of a special substance or immortal etc. If your like me, you probably belief that Buddhism (not the degraded form of being an ‘ism’) has something important to contribute to this secular world that currently is missing from western culture and the western tradition of science and rationality. No doubt that you are interested like myself in using science (one example: using fMRI with meditating monks) to learn from traditional bodies of knowledge in much the same what that scientific medicine absorbs the useful and reject the useless from ‘alternative medicine’. Implied in all this is the basic claim that reality is what is sacred, not thoughts, and that each one of us can transform our consciousness in an extraordinary way that is not demeaned by the fact that the whole process is entirely materialistic. This is the first reason I have attempt communication with you: I believe the notion of fundamentally transforming human consciousness is missing from our global culture (including the scientific community), perhaps in part due to the psychologically crippling effects of dogma.
The second concern I wish to discuss with you is the problem of a dominating philosophy of science that I believe is crippling the scientific community. Having just watched the first quicktime Beyond Belief 2006 clip and having just read ‘How We Believe’, I noticed that the mind of Michael Shermer has been influenced by this philosophy. Gould’s separate ‘Magisteria’, and Shermer’s ‘Separate Worlds’ Model are directly the result of this thinking. This philosophy has evolved out of the thinking of the Logical Empericists and the Popperians. This inadequate philosophy has been bothering me for years whenever I came across it, but only recently after reading an article by Larry Laudan did I realise the nature of the beast, so to speak. This combined with the memetic plagues such as social constructivism have I believed crippled the scientific mind, not in its ability to conduct the work of science, but in its ability to combat the irrational forces in this world. The stagnation in the philosophy of most scientists is obvious when you consider that decades how many scientists adopt either an outdated, simplistic Popperian philosophy or a purely pragmatic view of the truth (this William James like attitude to the truth is prevalent in psychology, .This is the second point of inquiry I wish to attempt to communicate with you, my reader.
I hope that these issues concern you and that further communication will be seen as beneficial and desirable.
Superheroes of Science
beyondbelief2006.org
15 hours of video from the conference in San Diego, CA.
This is an rich vein of gold on the science and religion problem. Well worth every minute, which I'm sure you'll agree once you see the first clip at:
Click here to watch the segments:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ or if your don't quick that much time then there are four shorter clips on the homepage: http://beyondbelief2006.org/
See below for the list of scientific speakers involved - 34 scientific superstars!
 | John Allman, an authority on primate cognition and brain evolution, is Hixon Professor of Psychobiology at the California Institute of Technology. He has received the Golden Brain Award from the Minerva Foundation. His book Evolving Brains traces the evolutionary path to the modern brain. Moral intuitions and the neural mechanisms of economic and social decision-making are among his current studies. |
 | Scott Atran, Research Director at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, France, has experimented extensively on the ways scientists and ordinary people categorize and reason about nature. He currently is an organizer of a NATO working group on suicide terrorism. His publications include In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion and The Native Mind: Cognition and Culture in Human Knowledge of Nature (co-authored with Douglas Medin and forthcoming from Oxford University Press). |
 | Francisco Ayala, described as the "Renaissance Man of Evolutionary Biology" by The New York Times, has made singular contributions not only to evolutionary and population genetics, but also to education, philosophy, ethics, religion, and national science policy. The Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Irvine, he is the author of the book, Darwin and Intelligent Design. |
 | Mahzarin Banaji, currently Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics at Harvard and Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, studies human thinking and feeling in social context, particularly how unconscious assessments reflect hidden attitudes about social group membership such as race, gender and class. Her research has implications for theories of individual responsibility and social justice. |
 | Patricia Churchland, who chairs the University of California, San Diego Philosophy Department, focuses also on neuroethics and attempts to understand choice, responsibility and the basis of moral norms in terms of brain function, evolution and brain-culture interactions. Her books include Brain-Wise, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain and On the Contrary, with Paul M. Churchland. |
 | Paul Churchland is professor of philosophy at University of California, San Diego. With his wife and philosophical partner, Patricia, he has been an advocate of "eliminative materialism", which claims that scientific theories about the brain do not square well with our traditional commonsense beliefs about the mind. Among his books are Matter and Consciousness, A Neurocomputational Perspective, and The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul. |
 | Paul Davies, who recently joined Arizona State Univer- sity, as a Distinguished Lecturer, is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, author and broadcaster. He continues his association with the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. He has written over 20 books, including the just published The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? His other books include Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational WorldThe God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?. and |
 | Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary theorist who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has popularized the gene-centered view of evolution and theory of memetics. His many books include The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and the New York Times best seller The God Delusion. |
 | Ann Druyan, the CEO and co-founder of Cosmos Studios, which specializes in the production of science based entertainment for all media, has authored several books, including A Famous Broken Heart, and Comet, which was on the New York Times best seller list for two months. Additionally, she co-authored another New York Times best seller, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors with her late husband, Carl Sagan. |
 | Paul Ekman, whose research documented that emotions with their 10,000 facial expressions are universal - a product of human evolution - was a professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco in the Psychiatry Department for 32 years before retiring in 2004. He has authored over 10 books, including Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. |
 | Owen Flanagan, specializes in philosophy of mind and moral psychology as James B Duke Professor and Professor of Neurobiology at Duke. He also holds appointments in Psychology and Neurobiology and is a Faculty Fellow in Cognitive Neuroscience. His latest book, The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them, explains that we need not give up our ideas of moral responsibility and personal freedom in order to have an empirically sound view of the human mind. |
 | Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and the director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. He is known for his promotion of the scientific study of the mechanisms of consciousness. He was the lead organizer of the first Tucson Consciousness Meeting, which is widely regarded as a landmark event. His collaboration with mathematical physicist Roger Penrose led to the development of the 'Orch-OR' theory of consciousness. |
 | Charles Harper is Senior Vice President of the John Templeton Foundation. Originally trained in engineering at Princeton and philosophy and theology at the University of Oxford, he has published research articles in scientific journals such as Nature, Science, and the Astrophysics Journal, and been the co-editor of several books, including Science & Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity and Fitness of the Cosmos for Life. |
 | Sam Harris has authored the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of ReasonLetter to a Christian Nation. His essays have appeared in Newsweek, The Los Angeles Times, The Times of London, The Boston Globe and elsewhere. He is currently researching the neural basis of religious belief while completing a doctorate in neuroscience. which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction, and |
 | William Hurlbut, a physician and consulting professor in the Program in Human Biology at Stanford University, focuses on the ethical issues associated with advancing biomedical technology, the biological basis of moral awareness, and studies in the integration of theology and philosophy of biology. A member of the U.S. President's Council on Bioethics, he supports the use of "Altered Nuclear Transfer," as a possible way for scientists to obtain pluripotent human embryonic stem cells for research. |
 | Melvin J. Konner is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology, Neuroscience, and Behavioral Biology at Emory University, and author of The Tangled Wing, has been described as "the nearest thing we have to a poet laureate of behavioral biology". His book Unsettled tells the story of the Jews from ancient history to the modern age. |
 | Sir Harold Kroto, Chairman of the Board of the Vega Science Trust, a UK educational charity that produces science programs for television, in 1996 shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley for the discovery of a new form of carbon, the C60 Buckminsterfullerene. He has received the Royal Society's prestigious Michael Faraday Award, given annually to a scientist who has done the most to further public communication of science, engineering or technology in the United Kingdom. |
 | Lawrence Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University where he also serves as the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics and Astronomy, has authored The Fifth Essence: The Search for Dark Matter in the Universe, The Physics of Star Trek, Beyond Star Trek, and Hiding in the Mirror. He received the American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award in 2002. |
 | Elizabeth Loftus, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, and the Department of Criminology, Law, and Society, at the University of California, Irvine. Her publications include, Eyewitness Testimony, Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial and The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse. |
 | Steven Nadler is Chair of the Department of Philosophy, and Max and Frieda Weinstein-Bascom Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of books on Spinoza, including Spinoza: A Life. His research focuses on seventeenth-century philosophy and the antecedents to aspects of modern thought in medieval Latin and Jewish philosophy - including the problem of evil. |
 | Susan Neiman, currently a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, is Director of the Einstein Forum, Potsdam. Author of Evil in Modern Thought: An alternative History of Philosophy, she is now writing Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists, a defense of the moral language of the Enlightenment as foundation for a liberal world view robust enough to meet contemporary challenges. |
 | Carolyn Porco is currently the leader of the Cassini Science Imaging Team and a lead imaging scientist on the New Horizons Pluto/Kuiper Belt mission. She is a Senior Research Scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and an Adjunct Professor at both the University of Colorado and the University of Arizona. An asteroid has been named in her honor. |
 | VS Ramachandran, Director for the Center of Brain and Cognition and professor with the Psychology Department and the Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, co-authored Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind, with Sandra Blakeslee, and is the author of A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness. |
 | Joan Roughgarden is a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford and teaches geophysics as well as a mathematical ecology. In her book, Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, she challenges Darwin's theories and promotes a diversity-affirming model of biology and evolution. Her most recent work, Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist, reflects on the relationship between science and religion. |
 | Loyal Rue, a two-time Templeton Award winner, is currently a professor of Religion and Philosophy at Luther College. His research focuses primarily on the Naturalistic Theory of Religion and his most recent book, Religion Is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture Our Biological Nature, discusses the complex relationship between the concept of God and religion. |
 | Terrence Sejnowski is an HHMI investigator, the Francis Crick Professor and Director of the Crick-Jacobs Center for Theoretical and Computational Biology at the Salk Institute. He is the author of several books including The Computational Brain and Liars, Lovers, and Heroes: What the New Brain Science Reveals About How We Become Who We Are. |
 | Michael Shermer, a former college professor, is the founding publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine. A monthly columnist for Scientific American, he is the author of The Science of Good and Evil. His most recent book, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, a discussion of the boundary between religion and science. |
 | Daniel Siegel, is the executive director of the Center for Human Development as well as an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine and a practicing psychiatrist. He is an award-winning educator whose goal is to provide a scientifically grounded view of human experience to facilitate psychological well-being and emotional resilience. He is the author of The Developing Mind: Toward a Neurobiology of Interpersonal Experience. |
 | Richard Sloan is the author of Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine. He is a professor of behavior medicine at Columbia University Medical Center where he conducts research on the relationship between psychological factors and health, including prayer and medicine. |
 | Neil deGrasse Tyson , the new host of the PBS-TV program "NOVA scienceNOW", is director of the Hayden Planetarium in the Rose Center For Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History. He is the recipient of seven honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal. |
 | J. Craig Venter, renowned as the leader of the Celera research program to decipher the human genome, is founder of both the J. Craig Venter Science Foundation and the J. Craig Venter Institute. In 2005 he co-founded Synthetic Genomics, a company that seeks to produce ethanol and hydrogen as alternative fuels through the use of microorganisms. |
 | Steven Weinberg, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin where he founded its Theory Group and holds the Josey Regental Chair of Science, was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics with colleagues Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow for combining electromagnetism and the weak force into electroweak force. He has written several popular books including the prize-winning The First Three Minutes, The Discovery of Subatomic Particles, and Dreams of a Final Theory. |
 | James Woodward, the J.O. and Juliette Koepfli Professor of Humanities at the California Institute of Technology, focuses on research regarding the philosophical and normative aspects of causation and explanation. His recent book, Making Things Happen, won the 2005 Latokos Award from the London School of Economics and Political Science. |
 | Roger Bingham is a scientist in the Computational Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute, and a member of the research faculty at the Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego. He is the co-author of The Origin of Minds: Evolution, Uniqueness, and the New Science of the Self, and the creator and host of Emmy award-winning PBS science programs on evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, including the critically acclaimed series "The Human Quest". He is co-founder and Director of The Science |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)