When light has energy why not shadows. Zero one two three are on the lighter side. But i 2i 3i on the darker. Squaring -1 -4 -9. You can guess structure on other side.
@ about 50:00 Dr. Randall starts to talk about how you can't reason someone out of a faith position. I think that the answer to that is to attack the idea of a faith based worldview itself. This avoids the appearance of siding with one religion against another also. _Faith_ is just a bad way to gather information. It can better be characterized as gullibility, and even someone of faith can usually be shown that faith is not an ideal way to determine what is true. We can look at L. Ron Hubbard and almost everyone, excepting less than about a hundred thousand people worldwide, can see that he was a confidence man, a huckster who just hit upon a way to make easy money. Almost everyone can see the same thing about Joseph Smith or Marshall Applewhite. Having faith in these people's beliefs is crazy. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed are just guys who ran the same scam in the past. Even the most devout christian can see where the same pattern of behavior that they themselves are displaying is wrong in every other context, and if faith is a valid way to determine what is true, how can they invalidate the beliefs that they disagree with? They have to at least admit inconsistency.
While it isn't easy, of course people can be reasoned out of their faith and it's absurd to believe otherwise. I was in some small way and I know many people who were.
Ed Gloss People don't hold onto their religious beliefs because of reason. Religious beliefs are inherently irrational. There's a magic man who lives in the sky, and he talked to Jesus or my pastor, and I should do what they say is not a rational position. People don't hold their beliefs for rational reason. Of course people should talk to believers and plant the seeds, but I suspect if you reasoned yourself out of faith, you did most of the heavy lifting yourself. I also would guess that your biggest obstacles weren't intellectual.
From an elemental meaning of what it is that makes up the composition of the Universe.., "dark-matter-energy" type specifications in relation to the Big Bang hypothesis, all unknowns, contribute very little to understanding the evidence, particularly if the same principle applies to "particles" of quantum uncertainty. The nomenclature is classical, and acknowledged to be indefinite and inapplicable to the "effectiveness" attributed to QM.
Ah, the old sexism in STEM nonsense. Could it be the choices people make? Why must there be a certain number of women in a particular field? More specifically, why must there be a specific number of women ONLY in fields considered to be prestigious and no one is fighting for more women sewer workers, garbage collectors, mine workers, roofers, etc.? Certain fields will attract certain people. As long as there is nothing specifically preventing someone from entering a field then its membership by this type of person or that type of person is totally irrelevant. Women can get college scholarships if they major in biology while there are more female biology students. There are simply no male-only scholarships while female-only scholarships are being offered to women to give them incentive to go into fields in which women are already a majority. I think that's as sexist as it gets and it's made possible by my tax dollars.
+Ed Gloss If you are familiar with an institution that is strongly gender biased it is natural to make assumptions about gender capacity and inclination based on the evidence of your experience. To the extent that these assumptions are incorrect your opinion is sexist.
+Organ Farm In the bell curves of human behaviors we can see generalisations but not universals. There are great women scientists in all the sciences but they are statistically less likely. Not so much from intelligence but because (just like in all work environments) they make life choices that take away from their chances of doing great science. Lisa Randall is a case in point, childless and unmarried she has spent the time to achieve in her field. Equally intelligent MEN and women without her commitment fail it's just more men commit and neglect family.
I like him. A straight up dude in all of life. But I love her. She's a Godess. But intellectually, she'd eat him alive like a big fish to a minnow. Great show.
Every human has limits. There no difference if they are a genius or not, a scientist or not. Every genius has two sides, cleverness and stupidity. In the case a scientist accepted the idea of dark matter, it is stupidity although she/he is a genius or a scientist. New evidence has been found: General relativity was totally wrong
Dr. Randall does not impress with her skill as science communicator. She’s not a particularly engaging speaker, and seems a bit boring, uninteresting, stiff. Didn’t make it through the whole thing. Snoooze...
+Tor Strasburg She is a professor. This science is pretty dry and she has lots of info in her head. She was clearly bored with the stupid questions at the end. She is used to teaching stuff that just doesn't reach people ( me included). Look at her lecture from 2002 and wonder why would she even bother talking to people like these!?
Wonderful talk. Thank you, Skeptic Magazine, for introducing me to this person!
Glad the audio works now. I've been wanting to see this for a few days now.
I love how quickly her words are cadenced. They can barely keep up with her thoughts. So beautiful.
I can't hardly understand her. She's mumbling. Great lady tho, and excellent video.
Why did you use the word cadenced? I'm curious.
You go girl! Reading the book now. Mind stretching great! Thank you!!!!
Was the host Michael joking at 55:36 when he said he used to work with Markov chains?
Randall is introduced and the interview begins at 3:35
I like how the discussion rejects written questions.I guess it's to keep from getting bogged down with things no one but a few understand
"Does it really matter? Does it really anti-matter?" -The Tick
How do you extract dark matter.
Did they switch seats during the interview?
Love the hose she is wearing.
When light has energy why not shadows. Zero one two three are on the lighter side. But i 2i 3i on the darker. Squaring -1 -4 -9. You can guess structure on other side.
i emailed you dr. randall asking for help
@ about 50:00 Dr. Randall starts to talk about how you can't reason someone out of a faith position. I think that the answer to that is to attack the idea of a faith based worldview itself. This avoids the appearance of siding with one religion against another also. _Faith_ is just a bad way to gather information. It can better be characterized as gullibility, and even someone of faith can usually be shown that faith is not an ideal way to determine what is true. We can look at L. Ron Hubbard and almost everyone, excepting less than about a hundred thousand people worldwide, can see that he was a confidence man, a huckster who just hit upon a way to make easy money. Almost everyone can see the same thing about Joseph Smith or Marshall Applewhite. Having faith in these people's beliefs is crazy. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed are just guys who ran the same scam in the past. Even the most devout christian can see where the same pattern of behavior that they themselves are displaying is wrong in every other context, and if faith is a valid way to determine what is true, how can they invalidate the beliefs that they disagree with? They have to at least admit inconsistency.
While it isn't easy, of course people can be reasoned out of their faith and it's absurd to believe otherwise. I was in some small way and I know many people who were.
Ed Gloss People don't hold onto their religious beliefs because of reason. Religious beliefs are inherently irrational. There's a magic man who lives in the sky, and he talked to Jesus or my pastor, and I should do what they say is not a rational position. People don't hold their beliefs for rational reason. Of course people should talk to believers and plant the seeds, but I suspect if you reasoned yourself out of faith, you did most of the heavy lifting yourself. I also would guess that your biggest obstacles weren't intellectual.
From an elemental meaning of what it is that makes up the composition of the Universe.., "dark-matter-energy" type specifications in relation to the Big Bang hypothesis, all unknowns, contribute very little to understanding the evidence, particularly if the same principle applies to "particles" of quantum uncertainty. The nomenclature is classical, and acknowledged to be indefinite and inapplicable to the "effectiveness" attributed to QM.
Yikes, I feel bad for Shermer. No matter what he says she tells him he's wrong.
Those chairs look seriously uncomfortable
Have they build Xray telescopes and gamma ray telescopes to see dark energy and dark matter.
They have to come under totally different spectrum and analysis.
Gravity sticks to dark matter because of spin of dark matter though weak.
What about radio waves and do they have different kind of cloud now that they heard the first voice.
Ah, the old sexism in STEM nonsense. Could it be the choices people make? Why must there be a certain number of women in a particular field? More specifically, why must there be a specific number of women ONLY in fields considered to be prestigious and no one is fighting for more women sewer workers, garbage collectors, mine workers, roofers, etc.? Certain fields will attract certain people. As long as there is nothing specifically preventing someone from entering a field then its membership by this type of person or that type of person is totally irrelevant. Women can get college scholarships if they major in biology while there are more female biology students. There are simply no male-only scholarships while female-only scholarships are being offered to women to give them incentive to go into fields in which women are already a majority. I think that's as sexist as it gets and it's made possible by my tax dollars.
+Ed Gloss If you are familiar with an institution that is strongly gender biased it is natural to make assumptions about gender capacity and inclination based on the evidence of your experience. To the extent that these assumptions are incorrect your opinion is sexist.
+Organ Farm In the bell curves of human behaviors we can see generalisations but not universals. There are great women scientists in all the sciences but they are statistically less likely. Not so much from intelligence but because (just like in all work environments) they make life choices that take away from their chances of doing great science. Lisa Randall is a case in point, childless and unmarried she has spent the time to achieve in her field. Equally intelligent MEN and women without her commitment fail it's just more men commit and neglect family.
+ok fanriffic I haven't made myself clear. Regardless of cause, if there is a strong gender bias, people will make assumptions as to why that is so.
The point is you haven't proven gender bias. There are other explanations to explain gender discrepancies besides bias.
Shermer really should have done some research he has no idea😔
The *IS* sexism in the academy, and it's only a problem when women are victims, and that's just one more bit of sexism.
I like him. A straight up dude in all of life. But I love her. She's a Godess.
But intellectually, she'd eat him alive like a big fish to a minnow.
Great show.
She seems to not realize religion is an ideology opposed to most of what she said about it. It even directly says to ignore people in the bible.
i love science! and i am a proud atheist!
Camera op should be fired.
Randall seems very prickly, her answers are very terse, often unnecessarily contrarian and disagreeable.
Every human has limits. There no difference if they are a genius or not, a scientist or not. Every genius has two sides, cleverness and stupidity. In the case a scientist accepted the idea of dark matter, it is stupidity although she/he is a genius or a scientist.
New evidence has been found: General relativity was totally wrong
Dr. Randall does not impress with her skill as science communicator. She’s not a particularly engaging speaker, and seems a bit boring, uninteresting, stiff. Didn’t make it through the whole thing. Snoooze...
+Tor Strasburg She is a professor. This science is pretty dry and she has lots of info in her head. She was clearly bored with the stupid questions at the end. She is used to teaching stuff that just doesn't reach people ( me included). Look at her lecture from 2002 and wonder why would she even bother talking to people like these!?
Think_Care Will do. Thanks for the comment.