The innovative 2005 documentary which used state of the art 3d computer graphics to simulate a mission to an inhabited planet around a remote star. The beginning is awful, why is George Lucas an expert in astro-biology? However, the film warms up as it passes some conventional alien life to encounter some really imaginative ones such as the giant 50 foot high beasts that walk over an amoebic sea.
1 hr 33 min 42 sec Jan 31, 2008 www.albca.com
The format of this paranoia is very similar to both the Scientologists war on psychiatry or Evangelicals war on Darwinism. Rather like the fact that there are a small minority of biologists who believe in Intelligent Design, this documentary shows the views of some of a small minority of physicians who have problems with vaccination. There are risks with vaccination as there are with almost any medical procedure, and people who do not believe in it, but that does not mean that vaccination does not work, or that the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that they are overwhelmingly worth it.
In the United States, the place of Tom Cruise for a war on physicians rather than psychiatrists, is taken by the quack radio host, Gary Null (who is not in this Australian documentary but is a popular anti-vaccination extremist). Null’s method is to setup vaccination as some kind of faceless government conspiracy compared with touchy feely alternative medicine, an argument which he delivers with a pleasant, soft, reassuring voice. This is an easy way to persuade people, because it is not comparing like with like.
Rather like the way that natural child birth surrounded by candles is a preferable environment to a sterile linoleum floored hospital room, but is a more dangerous one, vaccination only works if everyone does it, so vaccination tends to be delivered through the somewhat anti-septic environment of government organized vaccination programs. It is because government programs tend to be more faceless and sterile than private ones that they raise the suspicions of those who are susceptible to paranoia and equate truth with personal desirability.
The solution to damping this paranoia was spectacularly shown when we visited our pediatrician, Michel Cohen, as group of prospective parents, before our son was born. At the end of a question and answer session, one man said that he was wary of governments and therefore wary of vaccination. Dr Cohen’s answer was that although it should be the man’s choice what to ultimately do, vaccination was not so much about the individual as about the community.
By replacing society and government with ‘community’, telling the guy he had a choice and implying that lack of vaccination put the individual before the community, i.e. was selfish, Dr Cohen had pulled a Gary Null. He had expressed something in comforting terms, but this time it happened to be the truth. Brilliant, quite brilliant.
Vaccination Information Service/Taycare Pty Ltd
45 min 20 sec Jan 20, 2008
www.vaccination.inoz.com
This documentary celebrates the possibility that we are entering a period where science will change from discovery about the word to mastery over it. In a world of post millennial global warming, peak oil and impending Malthusian crises its a touching piece of optimism.
This world view is logically in direct opposition to something like the Green movement, because what it is suggesting, is that the environment is something we can control rather than defer to. It could be argued that our only way out of global environmental catastrophe is to hit the gas.
Of course none of these political issues come into play here, but it would be an interesting way to stir up complacency on both sides of the spectrum, by pitting the opposition to the Green movement as being something whose tone is liberal, mystical and positive, rather like this film.
I am in favor of environmentalism, but think that with it we have to accept that we will return to a dystopian, feudal past as a payoff to save the planet for other species.
The film is presented by Michio Kaku who made a name for himself as a popularizer of science, in the media. Which is odd, because he’s not a great presenter but is a truly great physicist, being, amongst other things, one of the co-inventors, as it were, of String Theory.
If you can get through the excruciating platitudes of the opening of this documentary the substance is really good.
(This is the first in a 3 part series).
51 min 54 sec Dec 11, 2007
BBC 1 43 min 31 sec Dec 11, 2007
This year’s prestigious BBC lecture is given by the entrepreneur that puts founders of web 2.0 companies to shame – Craig Venter.
The BBC 58 min 44 sec Nov 21, 2007
Margaret Mead was one of the world’s most celebrated anthropologists. After living with a small Samoan tribe, in the 20s, she published research which suggested nurture was more important than nature, a view shared by her supervisor at Columbia but few others.
This lead to one of the most famous controversies in science, after it was strongly refuted by another anthropologist, Derek Freeman. It’s a controversy that is still unresolved, although a dramatic documentary made in 1987 proved that her evidence was flawed.
Mead argued that the passage from childhood to adulthood in Samoa was a smooth and not marked by the angst and stress seen in the United States. One possible reason: Samoan women deferred marriage for many years while enjoying casual sex, but eventually married, settled down, and successfully reared their own children. Not the kind of society that had values that many Americans shared, in the 20s when it was assumed that less developed societies were primitive in all aspects.
Its very funny that the principal controversy perfectly describes most Western societies today, and yet the debate seems to have pushed this fact, that the initial conditions are now synchronized, into the background. There was no word for teenager in the 20s. Our societies seem to have more rite of passage angst and later settling down – or at least people singing about it. Without our Samoan style society there would be no Emo bands from Brooklyn, or double-wide strollers containing the result of fertility-enhanced, older-couple, pregnancies.
It is a classic case of where politics and science collide, and one that could surely be studied as an anthropological phenomenon in itself. The ‘meta’ nature of it is what appeals to me.
58 min 53 sec Feb 15, 2007
James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, is in a lot of hot water after claiming that black people are less intelligent.
I was dismayed to see how many commenters on websites like Digg were saying things like ‘at least someone has the guts to say it’. It was equally worrying that there was a patronizing undercurrent of ‘perhaps this is true and we should censure science’.
Science may indeed create moral dilemmas – it has already with Darwinism. (Many apologists ignore the fact that Darwinism does in fact create an absolute moral dilemma for the religious. Darwinian creation is cruel, each perfected element being the result of the suffering of others, therefore, you cannot believe in a truly benign creator and the fact of Darwinism). It could have been true that some people are more stupid genetically. This would have been a moral dilemma, had it not been for the fact that the premise is wrong making it not worth examining the conclusion.
The statement ‘black people are more stupid genetically’ is meaningless, for the following reasons:
1. Black does not mean much genetically. Humans migrated out of Africa more than once. In other words, Non Africans are closer related to some Africans than those Africans are to other Africans. Even diseases like Sickle Cell Anemia are not black diseases, per se, just diseases that were inherited with a cultural grouping, having been predominant in malarial regions (thanks Tom).
2. It hasn’t always been black people that were looked down upon. The Romans, for example, had an African emperor and viewed Northern Europeans as being an inferior race.
3. Statistics that correlated lower intelligence with color, had that correlation removed if class were taken into account. I.e. being poor makes you less likely to do well in an IQ test. People who are looked down upon tend to be poorer, like Germans in the Roman Empire.
If accusation of lower intelligence just happens to correspond exactly to prejudice which is due to an irrational grouping of people, then its probably the grouping that is wrong and therefore it not worth looking into whether black people are less intelligent – no dilemma, stupid and biased premise.
Here Steve Jones, a sensible person, talks about genetics, the day after the author of the infamous ‘Bell Curve’ appeared on Charlie Rose.
Charlie Rose Inc. 57 min 47 sec Feb 20, 2007
www.charlierose.com
Child prodigies, as exemplified by Marc Yu, a seven-year-old concert pianist.
“What do you want to be when you grow up?” the child psychologist asks. “A psychiatrist” says Marc, adding “only joking”.
I particularly like the scene where he looks bored and turns away from the psychologist, rocking back and forth on a stool in a very ordinary childlike manner, except that he is playing Mary Had a Little Lamb, backwards, behind his back, on the piano. A song he picked out when he was two.
46 min 57 sec Aug 26, 2007
However, in honor of Al Gore’s deserving win, which sends an amusing ‘fuck you’ to the knuckle scraping goons lolling around the White House, here is an excellent Channel 4 profile and interview of Gore. It is presented by the UK’s most savvy US correspondent, Johnathan Freedland.
Channel 4 46 min 41 sec Jun 5, 2006 www.climatecrisis.net
Link
Even if information theory doesn’t become the cornerstone of Physics, an outcome that now seems plausible, Shannon’s contribution to science is immeasurable. The encoding in this video itself is a result of Shannon’s ideas.
People are just starting to put up statues of Shannon, in future he will surely be remembered as the most important home grown scientist of the 20th Century.
Trivia: Shannon was a distant relative of Edison.
Comments Off on Claude Shannon biography, science, smashing telly top 10 documentaries