This is a great 2 dvd set that has just recently been released. It's a lecture series called The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children which is done every year, and back in 1991 Richard Dawkins was the lecturer. The lectures deal mostly with evolution and Richard Dawkins attempts(and succeeds I think) at explaining our universe in a way young people can understand(I wouldn't recommend it for children of too young an age, probably good for preteens and young teens). He uses animation, pictures, props, and simple experiments to explain many scientific principles. Even as an adult who is familiar with all this information, I thoroughly enjoyed the lectures. All proceeds benefit the Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science, which is mainly why I bought it.
I've placed my order. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I thought you might. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Haha, my family watches these every Christmas. Most of them are pretty good .
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Yeah, I had heard about this and watched the trailer, but neither the trailer nor the website were all that informative. So, thank you for sharing a little more about it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
no problem, just doing my part as an unofficial member of the Richard Dawkins fan club!
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm having trouble ordering through the website (which admittedly might be just my computer) -- question, though, how do you have the DVDs already when it says they won't be released til April 30th?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm not really sure. I pre-ordered it not expecting to get it for a while, and then one day got an email saying it was shipping out.
Maybe that release date is the "official" release date but they're shipping out pre-orders early?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Self-Made Universe, which was proposed in it's first form as a question by Schroedinger, "Is the World without an observer like a play without an audience: unseen and thus, quite properly, not existing?
quote:the link said: The articles describe results that show that quantum mechanics describes the behavior of a system better than a principle called "local realism."
Local realism can be understood fairly easily: the properties of particles can be completely described, and those properties remain localized, meaning that properties can't be transmitted to a different location faster than the speed of light. That probably sounds reasonable, but those of you familiar with quantum entanglement are probably already recognizing a problem here.
Two entangled items, which can include photons moving at the speed of light, have properties that are linked. Measuring the properties of one of these items will cause the other to instantly switch from an indeterminate state to one with properties defined by its entanglement with the other. Since the entangled items can be far apart when this occurs, the transfer of properties appears to be taking place faster than the speed of light.
Does this mean we might be able to build an ansible sometime?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:This should be interesting but unpleasant and predictable.
I watched the Sam Harris interviews and was really surprised by how O'Reilly conducted himself both times. He didn't flip out at all and thanked Sam Harris both times for being honest and called his ideas provocative. I found myself not loathing the man as much as I usually do. I found it amusing that he called the beliefs of islamic suicide bombers ridiculous and crazy, but at the same time stuck up for his own religious beliefs. Sam Harris made the great point that while the behavior it produces may be different, the irrational logic and unquestioned faith that leads to it is the same.
Given that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have EXTREMELY similar ideas about religion's place in society, I wonder if O'Reilly will act in a similar vain towards Dawkins. I'm thinking no, and I'm thinking he's going to be more on the attack.
I think Dawkins will be fine on the show though. His razor sharp wit and logic should do fine against O'Reilly's bullying techniques.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I just watched those Sam Harris interviews myself. That was a pretty good interview. I didn't even pull my hair out. I'll have to remember to watch the Dawkins interview on Monday.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:This should be interesting but unpleasant and predictable.
I watched the Sam Harris interviews and was really surprised by how O'Reilly conducted himself both times. He didn't flip out at all and thanked Sam Harris both times for being honest and called his ideas provocative. I found myself not loathing the man as much as I usually do. I found it amusing that he called the beliefs of islamic suicide bombers ridiculous and crazy, but at the same time stuck up for his own religious beliefs. Sam Harris made the great point that while the behavior it produces may be different, the irrational logic and unquestioned faith that leads to it is the same.
Given that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have EXTREMELY similar ideas about religion's place in society, I wonder if O'Reilly will act in a similar vain towards Dawkins. I'm thinking no, and I'm thinking he's going to be more on the attack.
I think Dawkins will be fine on the show though. His razor sharp wit and logic should do fine against O'Reilly's bullying techniques.
Agreed on all points. I was also pleasantly surprised by O'Reilly's conduct in the Sam Harris interviews. And despite Harris and Dawkins having pretty much the same ideas, Dawkins does have a more 'provocative' reputation.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I just realized this morning that one of my friends gave me a disc with a blurry copy of these lectures on it a year or so ago, but I never watched them. It looks like they were taped off of TV or transferred from VHS, but I have been listening to the first part "Waking up in the Universe" for a little while now.
I found so far, that I am also familiar with the information he is talking about. I like the examples he uses. I wish I had seen them ten years ago. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Well, it didn't go all that bad. I wish it was longer, and I wish O'Reilly would've let Dawkins get more than a few words in here and there.
O'Reilly's argument that we should believe in God because how else could life have happened was pretty weak, and I was upset that Dawkins didn't rip into it.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I suppose you can't really have a Hatrack-depth discussion about something like this in three minutes.
I don't think they really got into anything of weight in the little segment they allowed.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Nothing to do with religion and only minimaly to do with evolution, Dawkins talks about the human mind in relation to the true nature(and weirdness) of the universe.
Coming in at 20 minutes it's not too long, and yet helped feed my Dawkins addiction(the O'Reilly interview was barely and appetizer).
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
With the O'Reilly show, I was more disappointed that the Stalin-Hitler-Mao-Pol Pot argument was sort of left hanging. The moustache quip was completely appropriate, but I can imagine many people dismissing it off-hand as ridiculous.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)