Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. In recording the lecture we've had to be careful of what we can/can't show, especially with material where we may not have the rights to reproduce (the presentation at the beginning is one of them). We always try to showcase the lecture material where possible, and will try to do more of that with future recordings.
Hi there, thanks for your comment - we posted a response to a similar about the camerawork before. Basically, with recording the lecture we've had to be careful of what we can/can't show, especially with material where we may not have the rights to reproduce (the presentation at the beginning was one). Having said that, we always try to showcase the lecture material where possible, and will definitely do our best to do that with future videos.
I wish this guy had a tv show. I always learn something when I read or watch something he does. If more people saw him we could almost end superstition.
Thanks for having your lectures freely available on yt... I'm all for the free exchange of information. I'm wondering why other universities don't keep up?
Great video thanks. This is the sort of thing that makes me say RU-vid is the best thing since sliced bread. Even the videos with people talking nonsense are interesting to see how they do it with complete sincerity. I quite like the balance of ideas model where fears can bias focus and result in poor choices especially when the issue hasn't been fully explored.
One it's Australia. They are really good in, formal events, to respect the sound levels. I've seen it on taped concerts. It's controlled. And it's also mostly people there used to other lectures. The setting is like UCSD (a university, in a 10 mile area full of about 10 designer resteraunts, high priced apartments, 3 colleges just for doctors not including ucsd, a ton of experimental businesses like yogurt surf shops etc). The people are high workload tired.
1) Only at the beginning, he seemed a little on edge, but perfectly human. Other than that, I thought he was fine (I'm from Australia). 2) It was just a joke, a mildly clever one, yet probably highly unoriginal 3) true 4) that's for someone actually present at the lecture to judge, not a youtube viewer Finally) great, wish there were more like you!
I agree with edeneye808: too much time spent on audience shots even at the expense of illustrating what Shermer is talking about, e.g., from the important stuff, like the angles he's pointing out in the Leaning Tower photos or to the simply interesting, like the shots of Feynman's van. It would have proved far more interesting to see what he was addressing his comments to rather than seeing (unfortunately in some cases, the blank-eyed stares of) the audience.
The camera operators are something else: it's frustrating enough to have to only see the audience reaction to Shermer pointing out 'this angle' and 'this angle' (40:33) but highlighting every grey-hair in the audience when Alzheimer's disease comes up (53:35) just seems a little mean.
I've heard this attempt at atheist checkmate many times. Its amusing how a believer fails to apply the same question to 'intelligent design'- so if God made the universe, then who made God? Why settle at the first mystical assumption? As Shermer stated at end, the difference between faith and skeptical thinking is that a supernatural explanation is where the believer stops questioning, but its where the scientist just gets started exploring. I think its more fun to believe, than to know.
Why do ALL youtube videos (recently) over an hour (or so) in length develop choppy/interrupted audio streams? This is HIGHLY annoying, making the last sections totally unwatchtable.
Ya know this makes me wonder. He's right about the anomaly thing. Literally you, anyone can not actually deal with them. It's impossible. Because the only thing that can deal with anomalies effectively is another system invented around the anomaly. Isn't that the basis of all road rage? One person: Hey they just did that THING and, PSH, I didn't expect that! F that guy. I'm gonna just act faster. Isn't the surprise always an anomaly? If you were surprised then by definition... :)
No it's not. A skeptic is someone who requires evidence. The word I think you are confusing it with is cynic. And as skeptics try to gain knowledge through evidence, they align perfectly with the foundation of modern science. Tone down the hybris and you might become smarter.
The one thing I will agree with you on is the camera work was awful. When Shermer had images to show, the camera often cut away to someone looking bored, someone scratching his nose or even picking his teeth. What's up with that, camera dude? I don't think he talked too fast. Maybe it's an American thing. If you already knew the subject matter, maybe it doesn't interest you. I already knew most of it, too. That's one reason the camera man's poor work started pissing me off.
Oh, and if you have to blur the images, you'd need text like "Image Copyrighted. Sorry." Otherwise a million people would be asking you why the image is blurry instead of, "Dude, why is the camera work so crappy?" :D
I am sure You mean Blind Faith...as in Belief. Faith that is based on Substantial Scientific Knowledge & Reasoning, and which may or may not have a Spiritual basis...as opposed to a Dogmatic Religious basis...is a good thing! I have Faith in thinking that You will likely agree. As for Blind Faith: that is toxic and has been the cause of much brutality and destruction of lives, human and otherwise!
Skeptic isn't the same as disbeliever at all. In fact, by labelling someone disbeliever- it's quite clear you're trying to show that they're somehow closed minded, which is unfair if they're not. Curiosity is certainly one of the drivers of science but isn't enough in itself, without skepticism, science would be no better than any other belief system- the alien abduction people are pretty curious too. Humans are naturally curious but not naturally skeptical. Hence its importance.
You could try investigating on the internet to help you be sure of something before you post a comment next time. However, skeptic is NOT the same as disbeliever. Skeptics can believe many things, they are only careful about it and investigate things first. You should also google "psychosis" before stating that a disbeliever "is the same psychosis as believer." This would be analogous to saying that 50 IQ points is the same intelligence as 150. Please also look up "scientist", as he is one.
Dr. Shermer, maybe you should endeavor down that financial path a little further. You might just uncover the biggest form of blind faith the world has has ever emerged.
Oh, that was too bad. Maybe it would have been better to go ahead and film the images and then blur them out later if necessary? It would be better than looking at half-asleep students and a guy picking at his teeth. :D
Nobody is making the genetic fallacy. Nobody ever said that the source of your belief proves that your belief is false. The problem is, it is demonstrable that our brains are prone to superstitious thinking. If your superstition is not in fact a superstition, you have the burden to provide evidence that is superior in weight to what all other superstitious have - eye witnesses of miracles. The problem is, you have none, so go back to church pray for better luck.
awfull lecture!! 1. he speaks much too fast (don't call me stupid here; i understood at least the most 98% of it; exept of some vocabulary, and thats just because im not native in english; aldough im german i'm nearly fluid and also know the topic, im a student of biology); 2. i didnt like his "jokes" about 9/11, 3. to camera doesnt catch the fotos in his presentation very well, 4. the clips with text have too much text...... finally nearly nothing really new 4 me here
Whoa fella...........you just conveniently combined quantum theory dynamics non locality with the mental construct of consciousness..........without any evidence or testing of such a merger............... that new age hooey..............
I think both theist & atheist try to convince us that they're both right and convinced themselves that the other is wrong - hmmm!!! I'm guessing both could either be wrong or at least one of them given the fact I've not studied what Shermer is babbling about - it just seems logical to my mind but think I do need to go and do some research on what he had said , I assumed that it's available, but on the other hand the theist point of views are soaked in Bronze Age Conceptualization, well i.e
"Skeptic" is the same as "disbeliever" which is the same psychosis as "believer". This man is no scientist. He is either a shill or a tool. "Are you a skeptic or a believer?" is a false dichotomy. I am neither, I am a curious thinker, which is seperate from either. Skepticism is not the foundation of science, curiosity is. I made it through this rabble, but that's all I could take. His flaws in his presentation were too numerous to bear...
"Skeptic" is the same as "disbeliever" which is the same psychosis as "believer". This man is no scientist. He is either a shill or a tool. "Are you a skeptic or a believer?" is a false dichotomy. I am neither, I am a curious thinker, which is seperate from either. Skepticism is not the foundation of science, curiosity is. I made it through over 1/2 hour of this rabble, but that's all I could take. His flaws in his presentation were too numerous to bear...
