Curiosity Show.

[GK]

Just stumbled upon this:

https://www.youtube.com/user/CuriosityShow


Deane and Rob must be uploading these video segments from their nursing home now! This brings back a lot of memories. I vividly recall running around the house with a wire coat-hanger dangling from stings tied to fingers stuck in my ears and mum throwing a fit over the smoking toaster stuffed with soggy bread sporting bits of lettuce held in place with toothpicks.
 

[VK3DRB]

Good one! Thanks.

That show was great. I suspect it might have influenced many to pursue a career in science and technology. I think the famous Shirley Shackleton was in that show or one similar, shown on a Sunday afternoon.

[EEVblog]

I grew up on that show like countless others, that are legends.
I was devastated to learn just a few years back that Deane Hutton is a Christian fundie  
http://www.deanehutton.com.au/index.php/products

[GK]

Actually, form a certain perspective, some of it looks quite funny:

TABLE TOP CHRISTIAN PARABLES........snip............Electromagnet (Christs drawing power)

Maybe I'm just iron deficient. 


Forrest M. Mims III is a true fundy (as in creationist). Dunno if Deane goes that far.

[EEVblog]

There's something I didn't want to know. Couldn't bring myself to watch the video either.

Yeah, sorry 

[EEVblog]

Forrest M. Mims III is a true fundy (as in creationist). Dunno is Deane goes that far.

Chris & I only found that out just before we did the Amp Hour with him  , and we both agreed to keep our mouths shut 

[EEVblog]

You have to be carefull to play the ball and not the man.  Which isn't to say I find it easy.

I find it easy to do. I still have the utmost respect for Deane & Forrest, and knowing this doesn't devalue their work for me in any way. I just find it personally sad and very surprising.

[Stonent]

Forrest M. Mims III is a true fundy (as in creationist). Dunno is Deane goes that far.

Chris & I only found that out just before we did the Amp Hour with him  , and we both agreed to keep our mouths shut 

I thought everyone knew that. 

There are different levels of creationism though, I think he falls into the earth is only thousands of years old category.

There's also the world is millions/billions of years old but God planned it all out to be the way it is currently.

There's also the world is millions/billions of years old but God only set a basic structure of life and let it evolve pretty much untouched.

There's also the world is millions/billions of years old but it was evolving up until a point where man (Adam) became distinctly different from the simians and other creatures and the story of Adam and Eve begins.  Since man would have required a mate and the chance of 2 of these special creatures that couldn't mate anywhere else on earth meeting was low, Eve was created for him to mate with.

So as a non-atheist I don't really see the old testament teachings conflicting with things I believe because when you think of a day in terms of what God considers a day, there's room for things to fit.  My family has a history of archaeology as a hobby so I've been exposed to fossils and such all my life. So I never took the 7 days things as literal.

In fact, it wasn't until I was about 12 or 13 that I found there were people who didn't think that way. 

Maybe I'm a creatiolutionist.

[VK3DRB]

You have to be carefull to play the ball and not the man.  Which isn't to say I find it easy.

I find it easy to do. I still have the utmost respect for Deane & Forrest, and knowing this doesn't devalue their work for me in any way. I just find it personally sad and very surprising.

Sad? Why?

How can someone's beliefs make you sad?

I respect anyone's freedom to believe in whatever they want - providing they don't become vexatious parasites who force their beliefs onto people, in a way that the ISIS terrorists and tree-hugging green fundamentalists do.

So if Deanne was gay or a cross-dresser, would that make you sad too because he does fall into your expectations of how YOU think he should think or act?

In my opinion, good on Deanne for expressing his beliefs and not falling to the chastisement of those who don't share his beliefs.

[EEVblog]

Sad? Why?
How can someone's beliefs make you sad?

Because these guys are scientists. Their careers and all of their thinking in life (beside religion) replies upon empirical evidence and sound reasoning.
Yet they are willing the throw all that away on some delusional religious belief, I find that absolutely remarkable.

I respect anyone's freedom to believe in whatever they want

So do I. I'll march in the street for their right to believe anything they want.

So if Deanne was gay or a cross-dresser, would that make you sad too because he does fall into your expectations of how YOU think he should think or act?

No! Because that has nothing to do with evidence based reasoning.
I'm purely talking about evidence based reasoning and how remarkable it is that some scientists can throw this away when it comes to religion.

Substitute the word religion/god for belief in fairies, or Thor, or leprechauns, and see if you have the same respect for that belief. I'm willing to bet you don't, and that you'd think they are batshit crazy.

In my opinion, good on Deanne for expressing his beliefs and not falling to the chastisement of those who don't share his beliefs.

I won't begrudge his decision to do that and make it public. In fact I often have more respect for the devout/fundie religious than I do for the bulk of the population who essentially just play along with the whole charade.

[GK]

In my opinion, good on Deanne for expressing his beliefs ..........

....... to anyone that forks over $25.00 AUD for the DVD.

[AlfBaz]

Because these guys are scientists. Their careers and all of their thinking in life (beside religion) replies upon empirical evidence and sound reasoning.
Yet they are willing the throw all that away on some delusional religious belief, I find that absolutely remarkable.

I've never had the opportunity to express this as these sorts of dialogs are soon shut down.

I've only turned to the dark side (atheism) in the last few years. Up until that point I could, in my mind, justify the existence of both in similar fashion to Stonent.

Due to the work happening at CERN and it bringing it into the spotlight, I resigned my self to come to grips with the reality of it all.

It's certainly not easy abandoning years of culturally inured beliefs. More pointedly is the feeling of "you're on your own now" which can be quite debilitating if you need emotional comforting and it is this that is often overlooked in these two way monologues. There are a great many people out there that take comfort from the feeling that somebody or something is out there looking out for you and unfortunately some can become very violent when this belief is attacked

[EEVblog]

I've never had the opportunity to express this as these sorts of dialogs are soon shut down.

Yes, I don't want to start another religion thread on here, but happy to let it go if it stays about the discussion of evidence based reasoning of scientists and how some chose to selectively abandon it.

[miguelvp]

I've never had the opportunity to express this as these sorts of dialogs are soon shut down.

Yes, I don't want to start another religion thread on here, but happy to let it go if it stays about the discussion of evidence based reasoning of scientists and how some chose to selectively abandon it.

In essence you did, but that's quite alright.

I'm a non practicing catholic but I was never told that evolution never happened, on the contrary, I even attended high school classes at an Opus Dei school BTW I'm not an illuminati or anything the likes of it. Funny thing to me is that the church promoted the education of the masses and they had a lot of great thinkers and scientists. Then again the Vatican doesn't align well with other factions.

But no one can dispute the role of the catholic church (good and bad) on the global history. They are the ones that stopped abolition when the Spaniards discovered (conquered) America. Just by converting the natives they were automatically protected from the brutalities of the colonialists. Too bad they didn't have influence with England, things would have been different.

Yeah they did excommunicated Galileo and they did act as gatekeepers of knowledge translating countless of ancient works including Greek and Arabic math works.

It's easy to get lost on the belief side of things but the moral part and education should not be ignored. But I'm no theologist and never dug deep into the whole thing because it will take many years of study and I have other interests. But the little I know I find very fascinating.

Edit: I know it's wikipedia, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Evolution

Actually the whole article shows the bipolarism of the Vatican and Science.

[VK3DRB]

I'm purely talking about evidence based reasoning and how remarkable it is that some scientists can throw this away when it comes to religion.

Many scientists - and engineers and mathematicians - don't throw away reasoning if they believe in God.

Some famous historical examples:
  Johannes Kepler
  Galileo Galilei
  René Descartes
  Blaise Pascal
  Robert Boyle
  Louis Pasteur
  Isaac Newton
  Charles Babbage
  Guglielmo Marconi
  Max Planck
  Leonhard Euler
  Charles Darwin

...just to name a few.

As for Galileo, a dangerous religious sect gave him a hard time. But Galileo gets the last word... in a photo I took in the Galileo Museum in Florence earlier this year of Galileo's preserved finger. I think it is the middle one.

[VK3DRB]

As for reasoning... what is the reason for our existence? What is the reason for the Big Bang? By observation, everything I have experienced is a result of cause and effect. Nothing just happens without stimulus from something. So if everything is cause and effect, was everything predetermined? If so, by what? And why? Is there any random choice in anything? Does free will actually exist?

As for the tooth fairy, many parents bring their kids up to believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny and Father Christmas. We told our kids the truth rather than feeding them a load of about a fat bastard who hands out Playstations and iPhones to sheltered rich kids.

[VK5RC]

Th mention of Father Christmas made me laugh, for a few years we played along with 'the game' with our kids but if they asked straight out we wouldn't lie. The bright ones it doesn't take them long to work it out. Some figure that if they 'find out' the presents may stop, so they don't ask!
Some years ago my then 7yo got told off by her teacher (Gov't school) for saying to other children that Father Christmas is your parents. It was one of the few times I  have had 'words' with a teacher.

[firewalker]

[GK]

As for reasoning... what is the reason for our existence? What is the reason for the Big Bang? By observation, everything I have experienced is a result of cause and effect. Nothing just happens without stimulus from something. So if everything is cause and effect, was everything predetermined? If so, by what? And why? Is there any random choice in anything? Does free will actually exist?

Why do the pious so often pose these questions as if they have any kind of worthwhile answers? "By observation", mankind is a wholly irrelevant quantity in the universe. Why should his whims and desires actually be central to any any explanation or "greater" understanding? Cite for me just one religious reference for any one of those "big" questions that isn't ultimately either a grandiose exercise in sophistry or simply a traditional and consequentially vacuous appeal to solipsism. Part of growing up is having the maturity to eventually realize and become comfortable with the fact that there are things that one will never know, and that some questions as a consequence are simply devoid of meaning.

As for your list of God-believing thinkers and scientists, so what? It's a given that all of them would have subscribed to numerous silly ideas and prejudices of their day of one sort or another. Being exclusively male and white I'd wager the majority believed in the inferior reasoning ability of the female sex and/or the backwardness of the black races. So what would that prove today? And a number of those you list did squander a great deal of resources on utterly stupid, non scientific and spirituality-bent ideas, particularly Newton.

And that arm should be buried; f^%#ing disgusting. 

[EEVblog]

Many scientists - and engineers and mathematicians - don't throw away reasoning if they believe in God.

Yes, they do. By definition, you must throw away reason and evidence if you believe in a god. That's why they call it faith, because by definition, faith is belief  without evidence. If there was evidence there would not be any need for faith.
These men, geniuses as they were, are natural products of their social environment and upbringing, they believed in science and reason for everything, except for when it came to religious faith.

Some famous historical examples:
  Charles Darwin

Darwin lost his faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

But of course that list is entirely pointless, and is often touted as some form of argument by the religious, it's meaningless.

[EEVblog]

To kinda-sorta keep this on-topic, anyone have any other heroes they found out something about and were surprised by?

[GK]

To kinda-sorta keep this on-topic, anyone have any other heroes they found out something about and were surprised by?

Liberace was gay.

[Stonent]

Hey if you're the biggest holy roller and you are researching a cure for cancer why should that be a problem?   

There are almost 5 billion people who identify as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu. There are surely a few scientists among them.

[EEVblog]

There are almost 5 billion people who identify as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu. There are surely a few scientists among them.

Of course there are. If you want to understand why, I'd suggest you study the science of cognitive neuroscience - IMO the most fascinating and promising science of this century.
If I could recommend a branch of science Sagan should get into, this would one on the top on my list.

[VK3DRB]

"By observation", mankind is a wholly irrelevant quantity in the universe.

I might agree if there was any sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. But there has been absolutely no evidence of anything. SETI has been running since 1961. On the law of averages, there would be at least one signal from extraterrestrial intelligence. Nothing. Dead silence. So maybe we are special. I cannot answer that yet and neither can you. So the question remains.

Part of growing up is having the maturity to eventually realize and become comfortable with the fact that there are things that one will never know, and that some questions as a consequence are simply devoid of meaning.

How do you know what you will never know if you don't seek knowledge. I have heard a religious person say to me "who cares?" when I mentioned to her about a new discovery about the plant Mars. That is an insult. The Higgs Boson particle discovery could have easily be left as "something that one will never know" unless the question did not demand an answer. Accepting that something we will never know is an insult. All question have an answer. The pursuit of knowledge is noble.

And a number of those you list did squander a great deal of resources on utterly stupid, non scientific and spirituality-bent ideas, particularly Newton.

Newton lost almost all his fortune on the Tulip bubble... nothing spiritual about it except greed. And that is what drives most bubbles. We have one here called the housing bubble. About to burst (I hope) and it will be entertaining to watch the foreigners and investors lose their money.

And that arm should be buried; f^%#ing disgusting.

Actually I think it would be a good idea to recycle dead bodies into blood and bone fertiliser. Put them to good use. Incinerating people is a waste. Maybe drying out and pulverising the bodies would be uneconomical, but I got my pet dog turned into Hortico fertiliser when he died so maybe it is economical for humans to get it done.

[zapta]

There's something I didn't want to know. Couldn't bring myself to watch the video either.

He he, bigotry got a reality check

[N2IXK]

Speaking about bigotry and scientists who somehow hold onto irrational ideas, what about William Shockley (semiconductor pioneer, Nobel laureate, and co-inventor of the transistor)? His theories about race and eugenics were "interesting" to say the least...

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/William-Shockley

[GK]

I might agree if there was any sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. But there has been absolutely no evidence of anything. SETI has been running since 1961. On the law of averages, there would be at least one signal from extraterrestrial intelligence. Nothing. Dead silence. So maybe we are special. I cannot answer that yet and neither can you. So the question remains.

You're missing the point here. However you are entitled to believe that the entire observable universe was created for the express purpose of incubator for man. I am not going to argue with you.

Part of growing up is having the maturity to eventually realize and become comfortable with the fact that there are things that one will never know, and that some questions as a consequence are simply devoid of meaning.

How do you know what you will never know if you don't seek knowledge. I have heard a religious person say to me "who cares?" when I mentioned to her about a new discovery about the plant Mars. That is an insult. The Higgs Boson particle discovery could have easily be left as "something that one will never know" unless the question did not demand an answer. Accepting that something we will never know is an insult. All question have an answer. The pursuit of knowledge is noble. 

There is an enormous gulf between your cited example of the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle and definitive answers to the sorts of religious questions that you posed, so I don't really see your point. The Seeking of knowledge is fine so long as one has a rational grasp of his limitations. I'd like to know what my great great great great great great great grandfathers mother was thinking while eating breakfast on the 13th day before her 23rd birthday.  How do you know what you will never know if you don't seek knowledge?

And a number of those you list did squander a great deal of resources on utterly stupid, non scientific and spirituality-bent ideas, particularly Newton.

Newton lost almost all his fortune on the Tulip bubble... nothing spiritual about it except greed. And that is what drives most bubbles. We have one here called the housing bubble. About to burst (I hope) and it will be entertaining to watch the foreigners and investors lose their money.

Oh, c'mon. Amongst many other wasteful endeavors (some arguably silly even for his time) Newton spent a lot of time seeking scientific truths in the tracts of the bible and even wrote a paper roughly predicting the year of the end of the world (some time before 2060). While you couldn't get away with saying that there was nothing spiritual about that I concede that you are free to claim that he is yet to be proven wrong.

[zapta]

Speaking about bigotry and scientists who somehow hold onto irrational ideas, ...

From Wikipedia:

"According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference"

Bigotry is bad, even if it is anti Christian.