Quoting AemJeff: It is important to say: Phil Plait! About time.

Indeed! What a great surprise when I clicked over to here. And with Carl, no less. Let's have Round 2 as soon as possible. BTW, Carl: You got a shoutout right on this site from BH.tv community member Nate for your own recent stellar debunking work. (Well, more terran than stellar, to be picky.) And Phil: Congrats on the Time Top 25 Award. (Is PZ jealous?)

-- Phil's many times updated, data-aggregating post on the Texas fireball -- Phil's "what we know so far" post, summarizing the above -- Phil's update, with video of the fireball. (The runners are hilarious -- looks like a panicked mob quelled with a massive infusion of Xanax.) -- video of the Edmonton meteorite, as captured by a police dashboard camera

Zimmer is awesome; very informative. Please have him on more often.

In case you have not seen it, the video of 78 year old Buzz Aldrin clocking 34 year old Bart Sibrel. I don't think it is a good idea to call someone like Aldrin "a coward and a liar and a thief."

Quoting thprop: the video of 78 year old Buzz Aldrin

Thank you, thprop. That was very refreshing.

Quoting thprop: In case you have not seen it, the video of 78 year old Buzz Aldrin clocking 34 year old Bart Sibrel. I don't think it is a good idea to call someone like Aldrin "a coward and a liar and a thief."

I know it's wrong for me to enjoy this as much as I do, but what a beautiful moment!

Quoting AemJeff: I know it's wrong for me to enjoy this as much as I do, but what a beautiful moment!

I don't think violence accomplishes much but sometimes it has a very cathartic effect. Sibrel attempted to have Buzz charged with a crime, but the Beverly Hills authorities declined. The BBC had a very thorough account of the incident. Slight correction - this happened on September 9, 2002, when Buzz was much younger - 72. From Phil's post on the incident:

Sometimes making that kind of claim can get you in trouble. It certainly did with Buzz Aldrin. Mr. Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, was ambushed by Mr. Sibrel with the Bible trick. On September 9, 2002, Mr. Sibrel jumped out at Mr. Aldrin with the Bible, daring him to swear on it. Buzz told Mr. Sibrel to go away repeatedly, and even asked for the police. When Mr. Sibrel physically blocked his path, Mr. Aldrin (who is 72, 5'10" and 160 pounds) punched Mr. Sibrel (37, 6"2" and 250 pounds) in the face.

Fun diavlogue, but I think Plait's enthusiasm carried him away at times. He gets the causality of fear of terrorism backwards- people didn't just shrug after 9/11 until color coded warnings appeared and started scaring them, color coded warnings appeared because people were scared and the government needed to look like it was doing something to address that.
The LHC thing was also a facile dismissal of people's fears. I don't doubt that the current calculations show it to be impossible, but these are the calculations that have already been done wrong at least once. To pretend like there's no chance they were messed up again just costs you credibility with anyone who's thinking critically about what you're saying.

Quoting pampl: Fun diavlogue, but I think Plait's enthusiasm carried him away at times. He gets the causality of fear of terrorism backwards- people didn't just shrug after 9/11 until color coded warnings appeared and started scaring them, color coded warnings appeared because people were scared and the government needed to look like it was doing something to address that.
The LHC thing was also a facile dismissal of people's fears. I don't doubt that the current calculations show it to be impossible, but these are the calculations that have already been done wrong at least once. To pretend like there's no chance they were messed up again just costs you credibility with anyone who's thinking critically about what you're saying.

I disagree with your assertion about the LHC. People's fears were whipped up by knaves and charlatans. In the absence of attention grabbing stunts like the lawsuit filed in Hawaii(!) seeking a restraining order against CERN (in Switzerland) nobody would have felt any reason to feel afraid. The LHC was far from the first big accelerator, and wasn't even the largest for which ground was broken. The guys responsible for creating all of the

Some new blood for the science section! Let's see if they can keep up with the two old turtles.

Awesome diavlog. Although I would have expected John or George to host something on "skepticism." But Carl was great and Phil was a great new face. I look forward to part 2, and 3... Note to our bloggingheads overlords: this is the second or third diavlog in as many days where several links or items mentioned were not shown in the sidebar.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ...Note to our bloggingheads overlords: this is the second or third diavlog in as many days where several links or items mentioned were not shown in the sidebar.

And did you notice that you still sit atop the viewer generated dingalinks? This also hasn't been updated for nearly 2 weeks. Maybe it's a wildcat strike?

Yeah, I noticed that too. Though I prize my position at the zenith of bloggingheads dingalink-dom, I'm also itching for new DL's.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Note to our bloggingheads overlords: this is the second or third diavlog in as many days where several links or items mentioned were not shown in the sidebar.

Some here, if you missed them.

Quoting AemJeff: I disagree with your assertion about the LHC. People's fears were whipped up by knaves and charlatans. In the absence of attention grabbing stunts like the lawsuit filed in Hawaii(!) seeking a restraining order against CERN (in Switzerland) nobody would have felt any reason to feel afraid. The LHC was far from the first big accelerator, and wasn't even the largest for which ground was broken.

The guys responsible for creating all of the noise were clowns with no legitimate point.

The point isn't so much how things would happen in the absence of this kind of protest, but the plausibility of scientists being able to self-regulate, which I think is hurt by blithely professing complete certainty in figures which contradict the previous figures he was completely certain of. I know being a PR guy for the scientific establishment isn't exactly Plait's job description, but I don't think it's asking much for him to take a step back and talk realistically about the chance for human error in the calculations or the theory or the construction and operation.

Quoting pampl: The point isn't so much how things would happen in the absence of this kind of protest, but the plausibility of scientists being able to self-regulate, which I think is hurt by blithely professing complete certainty in figures which contradict the previous figures you were completely certain. I know being a PR guy for the scientific establishment isn't exactly Plait's job description, but I don't think it's asking much for him to take a step back and talk realistically about the chance for human error in the calculations or the theory or the construction and operation.

pampl, I honestly don't understand how this applies to Plait's points about the LHC. The chance for human error was exactly the same for the LHC as it was for every other human endeavor since the beginning of time. The chance that those errors would lead to the end the world were also exactly the same as it was for those other projects - pretty much zero. There are regularly higher energy collisions (by orders of magnitude) in the upper atmosphere than will ever be achieved by the LHC. The cumulative magnitude

Quoting AemJeff: pampl, I honestly don't understand how this applies to Plait's points about the LHC. The chance for human error was exactly the same for the LHC as it was for every other human endeavor since the beginning of time. The chance that those errors would lead to the end the world were also exactly the same as it was for those other projects - pretty much zero.

There are regularly higher energy collisions (by orders of magnitude) in the upper atmosphere than will ever be achieved by the LHC. The cumulative magnitude of those collisions so dwarfs the LHC's potential that the net increase caused by the LHC is essentially zero. There's nothing unique or extraordinary enough about it to have warranted the concerns.

I wasn't talking about whether the concerns were warranted. It'd look just as bad any time someone said he's doing something with an infinitesimal chance of widespread destruction and, after meeting with resistance from a handful of people, said he was wrong and actually there's no chance at all. It's more important now, I guess, as experiments get scarier sounding, information becomes more wide spread, and people demand

So, not being very scientifically inclined but interested nonetheless, I try to keep up with Science Saturdays and clicked on Phil’s Bad Astronomy link. And what do I see on the front page immediately? A music video tribute set to my favorite-est TV show of all time – FireFly! Here I am trying to learn something tangible about astronomy and right away I get sucked into what seems to be an homage to Inara Serra, the space courtesan. I tried! I can only grasp one scientific item at a time so the video was all I came away with from the site, but I’ll make another attempt maybe next week. I also recently bought Carl’s Parasite Rex based on everyone’s raves a while back. I’m still not sure if I got it because I want to read it or I want to be the kind of person who reads it, but I know that I’ll read it.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: ... my favorite-est TV show of all time – FireFly! ... I also recently bought Carl’s Parasite Rex ...

Two more additions to the long list of reasons to like you. I highly recommend, either before reading or after, listening to Carl's appearance on This American Life, conducted right after P. Rex was released. Listening to Ira Glass get progressively more horrified is hilarious. That interview was what spurred me to buy the book. If you're pressed for time, Carl's part is Act II, starting at 24:30, but the whole show is good.

Via Joanne Hewitt: from Abstruse Goose.

Wow, really enjoyed this. I keep looking forward to Science Saturday bhtv more and more; We need an occasional Science Wednesday or something to help me make it through the week. Definitely get Phil back here sometime; He was excellent!

Quoting bjkeefe: I highly recommend, either before reading or after, listening to Carl's appearance on This American Life, conducted right after P. Rex was released. Listening to Ira Glass get progressively more horrified is hilarious. That interview was what spurred me to buy the book.

It is a great interview - and ends spectacularly.
Ira Glass asks - "Mr. Zimmer, whose side are you on?" Ira goes on to call Parasite Rex "the perfect reading material if you ever want to have a long talk with an eight year old boy."

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: my favorite-est TV show of all time – FireFly!

Such a great show. I still find myself singing (in inadvertently humming) music from the show even though it has been awhile since I have seen an episode. (the theme song, "Hero of Canton", etc.) Probably has something to do with watching every episode so many times, haha. Fox could have had a gold mine on their hands with that one, but really screwed the pooch in how they handled it. (meddling with production, not airing the pilot to set up the characters and airing the others out of order, etc.) I keep hoping they will make a sequel to Serenity (or better yet a trilogy), but I am expecting disappointment.

Jeez, thprop. Ever heard of putting SPOILER ALERT at the top of a post like that? ;^)

Wondering if Bad Astronomy was the same website that I saw years ago which did things like explain why the hilariously bad opening of Contact (the film) was bad science. I may have it confused with another.

http://www.mikero.com/blog/2009/02/20/more-darwin

Quoting harkin: Wondering if Bad Astronomy was the same website that I saw years ago which did things like explain why the hilariously bad opening of Contact (the film) was bad science. I may have it confused with another.

Minor nitpicks, but not too harsh, it appears. Maybe you were thinking of the right site, but another movie? Why did you think the opening of Contact was "hilariously bad?"

Quoting claymisher: [...]

!!!!! Totally stealing that.

Quoting bjkeefe: !!!!!

Totally stealing that.

Knew you'd like it.

Quoting claymisher:

http://www.mikero.com/blog/2009/02/20/more-darwin

Nice! I saw that on Pharyngula the other day and thought it was killer.

Whither ' taken out of context' ? I've also have noticed this . . . very perturbing. (Will I actually have to start posting substantive comments now?!) And, even worse: the 'highlights' that have been published the last couple of weeks on the main page have been stolen from user generated content! 'Bankers aren't pirates' was from one of our fellow posters (can't remember who right now) and 'Costly Inquiry' was stolen from, well . . . ME.

Quoting bjkeefe: Minor nitpicks, but not too harsh, it appears.

Thanks! That's the site. It says it was last updated last year but I'm pretty sure I read it in the early part of this decade.

Quoting bjkeefe: Maybe you were thinking of the right site, but another movie?

No, that's the one. I just thought it was pretty funny to say (among other things) that you could go to Saturn and dial up Jack Benny, Walter Winchell or Fibber Mcgee.

Quoting bjkeefe: Why did you think the opening of Contact was "hilariously bad?"

Explained above. As to the film itself, even after cataloguing about ten significant science gaffes, the reviewer says something rather extraordinary: "Those of you familiar with my reviews know that I take a dim view of science errors in movies. However, I loved ``Contact'' and so I am willing to give it more leeway. Does that sound unfair? Too bad! It's my website!" As a lifelong film fan this has always been one of my pet peeves, reviewers willing to overlook bad filmmaking because they approve of the message. The message in Contact struck me as rather hollow and silly, but I think Jonathan Rosenbaum says it much better than I. Whether it's space nannies prompting early

Quoting harkin: Thanks! That's the site. It says it was last updated last year but I'm pretty sure I read it in the early part of this decade.

Your memory is almost certainly correct in spirit, if a little exaggerated. I expect Phil would have reviewed it soon after it was released. It looks like he added more thoughts later; e.g., there is an explicit note at the beginning of one paragraph saying "[NOTE (May 11, 2000) ..." However, to be precise, the movie came out in 1997. (Hard to think that "twelve years ago" only gets you back to the late '90s, isn't it?)

Originally Posted by bjkeefe
Why did you think the opening of Contact was "hilariously bad?"

Explained above. As to the film itself, even after cataloguing about ten significant science gaffes, the reviewer says something rather extraordinary:

"Those of you familiar with my reviews know that I take a dim view of science errors in movies. However, I loved ``Contact'' and so I am willing to give it more leeway. Does that sound unfair? Too bad! It's my website!"

As a lifelong film fan this has always been one of my pet peeves, reviewers willing to overlook bad filmmaking because they approve of the message. The message in Contact struck me as rather

These guys talk about creationism and the lunar landings in the same breath. The first is subject to scientific enquiry but the second is not. The fact is that most people are scared to death of being thought of as crackpots and are therefore unwilling to admit to doubts about whether man has ever walked on the moon. It is also true that there would have been a major political motive for faking the landings. There is also no way of proving that the landings did in fact take place. If, using the same technology available in the 1960s, NASA (or anybody) is able to replicate the landings, that would take the wind out of the sails of the lunar-skeptics. Until that is done, there is enough reason to be skeptical. If these guys are real skeptics, they should be willing to explore the evidence that runs contrary to popular opinion. It is simply not enough to debunk unpopular theories by questioning the evidence presented -- true science involves finding your own evidence and subjecting it to rational enquiry.

Quoting Legin: These guys talk about creationism and the lunar landings in the same breath. The first is subject to scientific enquiry but the second is not.

Completely disagree. The first is not subject to scientific enquiry, while the second one is. Creationism is a belief in something for which there is a reasonable argument, given the way our brains are wired, for which there is no evidence. You either accept by faith that there is/was a Creator or you do not. One can make a scientific case against the Young Earth variant, and one can also make a scientific case that we have no need of the Creator hypothesis to explain evolution or even the beginning of life, and one can even believe in the scientific explanations and still not be dissuaded from thinking that a Creator set up (and maybe even watches over) the whole system. However, one cannot even begin to make a case that would disprove the existence of a Creator. This, fundamentally, is the objection to teaching Creationism in a science class: because it is not amenable to the rules of scientific enquiry. By contrast, the question

I will ignore your insults but the fact is that your conviction that the lunar landings did take place is based on your wish to believe, not the 'mountain' of evidence that presumably exists. All this sounds very much like religious faith to me, i.e. unprovable. Unfortunately, that is what has characterized the debate on over the lunar landings -- an unwillingness on the part of the 'believers' to accept that there is no way of proving that the event did in fact take place unless it is replicated using the same technology that presumably got us there in the first place. And, by the way, it wasn't my intention to argue that creationism could be proven correct, just the opposite. The basic tenets of the biblical account - the earth being 7,000 year old etc, can be shown by modern science to be incorrect.

Quoting Legin: I will ignore your insults ...

Please don't.

... but the fact is that your conviction that the lunar landings did take place is based on your wish to believe, not the 'mountain' of evidence that presumably exists. All this sounds very much like religious faith to me, i.e. unprovable.

Wow. You know how to co-opt the language of real skeptics. In other news, the Disco'tute peeps know how to talk science-y.

Unfortunately, that is what has characterized the debate on over the lunar landings ...

Unfortunately for you, the only debate is in your twisted little mind. Go away.

That was nicely presented, Brendan. (Hobby horse alert!) I'd add a few small observations. The opening radio sequence was metaphorical, not literal - just a device to help make obvious the point of the sequence. In that sense it's really not unscientific, just poetic license. It's forgivable for exactly the same reason that an audible space explosion is not. That is, it exists to get across a valid (and necessary to the plot) scientific idea to the audience. Think about General Grievous, the wheezing alien in Revenge of the Sith, cackling as he's ejected into vacuum and competently maneuvers himself into an escape vehicle, or the insta-blooming "Genesis Planet" in The Search For Spock. Annoying physics blunders exist as failures of the imagination. Occasionally exaggerating an effect, or inventing a speculative physical law that fundamentally interacts with the plot really aren't sins if they're carefully crafted and serve a purpose.

Quoting AemJeff: [...]

Thanks. I agree with the rest of your comments. In case I didn't make it clear enough before, let me restate that bad science in scifi that serves no purpose other than catering to the laziness of the screenwriter bugs me as much as it does anybody. I don't enjoy most scifi that drifts toward the fantasy end of the spectrum for the same reason. It drives me bananas when, on page 193, the hero is in a corner and from out of nowhere, some new magic power is introduced.

Quoting Legin: These guys talk about creationism and the lunar landings in the same breath. The first is subject to scientific enquiry but the second is not. The fact is that most people are scared to death of being thought of as crackpots and are therefore unwilling to admit to doubts about whether man has ever walked on the moon. It is also true that there would have been a major political motive for faking the landings. There is also no way of proving that the landings did in fact take place. If, using the same technology available in the 1960s, NASA (or anybody) is able to replicate the landings, that would take the wind out of the sails of the lunar-skeptics. Until that is done, there is enough reason to be skeptical. If these guys are real skeptics, they should be willing to explore the evidence that runs contrary to popular opinion. It is simply not enough to debunk unpopular theories by questioning the evidence presented -- true science involves finding your own evidence and subjecting it to rational enquiry.

The first priniple of dealing with crackpots is

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks.

I agree with the rest of your comments. In case I didn't make it clear enough before, let me restate that bad science in scifi that serves no purpose other than catering to the laziness of the screenwriter bugs me as much as it does anybody.

I don't enjoy most scifi that drifts toward the fantasy end of the spectrum for the same reason. It drives me bananas when, on page 193, the hero is in a corner and from out of nowhere, some new magic power is introduced.

And yet, I have completely forgiven the "Sonic Screwdriver." Go figure.

Ever read Peter F Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" series? It's a rollicking space opera that just keeps getting more and more dire - a great read for over a thousand pages and then Wham! the biggest, dumbest, most literal deus ex machina solution ever published. I haven't read a single book by him again.

Quoting bjkeefe:
To the former, I'll recall that the most frequent complaint I heard about Jurassic Park was the expository scene where the hows and whys of the genetic engineering were presented. I didn't mind it, but the consensus seemed to have recoiled in horror, being reminded perhaps of past science classes. So, directors are always looking for didactic shortcuts, and I give them a pass when it's only a supporting point serving some larger one, and I think Phil did, too.

The biggest problem I had with Jurassic Park was that when Sam Neil and Laura Dern are standing in a meadow surrounded by dinosaurs and Richard Attenborough tells them he has cloned Tyrannosauruses, they don't immediately start looking for safe haven or verifying that they don't have access to that area.

Quoting bjkeefe: An interesting choice of word: nannies. The conceit of an outside agency directing humankind's evolution seems just as acceptable to me as any of a number of other scifi plot devices. As with, say, FTL travel, I'm willing to take a dubious starting point as axiomatic for the sake of the rest of the story. I wonder why this comes off as politically objectionable to

Quoting AemJeff: And yet, I have completely forgiven the "Sonic Screwdriver." Go figure.

LOL! Wish I knew more about Who. As another example of the failure of general statements to cover all cases, I hate disco, but I love this song. As you say, go figure.

Quoting AemJeff: Ever read Peter F Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" series? It's a rollicking space opera that just keeps getting more and more dire - a great read for over a thousand pages and then Wham! the biggest, dumbest, most literal deus ex machina solution ever published. I haven't read a single book by him again.

No. Never heard of it. What a horrifying thing, though. Makes me think of a Misery-like scenario, in which you would kidnap Hamilton and force him to rewrite the ending. But after you got over the shock of the immediate annoyance, did you feel the first 95% was, in the end, worth it?

Quoting Legin: There is also no way of proving that the landings did in fact take place. If, using the same technology available in the 1960s, NASA (or anybody) is able to replicate the landings, that would take the wind out of the sails of the lunar-skeptics. Until that is done, there is enough reason to be skeptical.

I don't want to dogpile here but this is the most incredible understanding of burden of proof I've ever read. To prove that the official Kennedy assassination story is true you have to assassinate a president using a 60s era rifle and book depository. To prove Barack Obama is a citizen of the USA you have to send an American-born black man back in time to the 2008 elections and have him win without calling on the mysterious political powers granted to non-Americans.

Quoting bjkeefe: No. Never heard of it. What a horrifying thing, though.

Makes me think of a Misery-like scenario, in which you would kidnap Hamilton and force him to rewrite the ending.

But after you got over the shock of the immediate annoyance, did you feel the first 95% was, in the end, worth it?

No. It was like (let's see if I can suggest this metaphor without being too literal about it) getting to the end of perfect date with beautiful woman, and thirty seconds before certain achievements are fully realized she gets a phone call, forgets you're there, and just drifts away. I was pissed. I've been tempted to try another of his stories more than once. But once jilted, forever wary. I like the Misery scenario though!

Quoting harkin: The biggest problem I had with Jurassic Park was that when Sam Neil and Laura Dern are standing in a meadow surrounded by dinosaurs and Richard Attenborough tells them he has cloned Tyrannosauruses, they don't immediately start looking for safe haven or verifying that they don't have access to that area.

ROFL! I'd forgotten that part. The part I hated most about that movie (I liked it okay, overall) was when the kids went into the control center, looked at a generic third-party graphical thingy on a computer screen, and said, "Oh, it's Unix! I know that!" Come to think of it, I'm hard-pressed to name any scene in any movie involving a computer where I didn't wish to have the screenwriter's knuckles within reach of my ruler. I'd like to emulate Jennifer Ouellette and form an computer geeks' advisory committee to help Hollywood cut down on this aspect of bogosity, too.

No, I was not referring at all to the 'nanny state'. This may be more a product of my personality but it always sort of struck me as hypocritical that people I knew who often ridiculed religion (I'm an agnostic myself but a foxhole

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! Wish I knew more about Who.

As another example of the failure of general statements to cover all cases, I hate disco, but I love this song.

As you say, go figure.

Giorgio Moroder! It has a way subtler melody than most disco, and sounds as much like seventies Krautrock (at least the more melodic variations e.g. later Tangerine Dream) as it does disco. I'm totally a sucker for this song.

Quoting AemJeff: No. It was like (let's see if I can suggest this metaphor without being too literal about it) getting to the end of perfect date with beautiful woman, and thirty seconds before certain achievements are fully realized she gets a phone call, forgets you're there, and just drifts away. I was pissed. I've been tempted to try another of his stories more than once. But once jilted, forever wary. I like the Misery scenario though!

My father once found a book on a remainder table that he gave to me as a present while snickering. I couldn't figure out why. It was a pretty good hard-boiled detective story, told in the first person, set in Boston. Even had a good computer hacking thread. My meat, Jack. Then I got to about page 317 and found forty pages were missing. Not torn out, just missing. And it was immediately clear from page 357 or whatever that it was not just a numbering goof -- somehow, they truly had omitted twenty sheets during manufacture. Curiously, for a time, I held this against the author.

Quoting bjkeefe: My father once found a book on a remainder table that he gave to me as a present while snickering. I couldn't figure out why. It was a pretty good hard-boiled detective story, told in the first person, set in Boston. Even had a good computer hacking thread. My meat, Jack.

Then I got to about page 317 and found forty pages were missing. Not torn out, just missing. And it was immediately clear from page 357 or whatever that it was not just a numbering goof -- somehow, they truly had omitted twenty sheets during manufacture.

Curiously, for a time, I held this against the author.

Man, that's mean! I can imagine that sort of thing evolving into escalating practical joke wars. I think I'd like your dad.

Quoting AemJeff: Giorgio Moroder! It has a way subtler melody than most disco, and sounds as much like seventies Krautrock (at least the more melodic variations e.g. later Tangerine Dream) as it does disco. I'm totally a sucker for this song.

BBC DJ John Peel in particular is largely credited with spreading the reputation of krautrock ...

Never heard of krautrock before, but I loved The Avengers! Oh, wait. Yeah, I've always thought "I Feel Love" is different, somehow, while being unsure that I wasn't just rationalizing. I do think one thing that appeals to me is that it has dynamic shifts, with the chorus, especially, so it seems more like music than a skipping record permanently stuck in the same groove, the way most disco does. Plus, Donna Summer can flat-out sing; even if it's the same three words over and over, that voice is a real musical instrument.

Quoting bjkeefe:
Oh, wait.

Heh.

Quoting bjkeefe: Plus, Donna Summer can flat-out sing; even if it's the same three words over and over, that voice is a real musical instrument.

Yeah. That's exactly right.

I'm pretty much fully with bjkeefe. (A minor deviation might be that some specific claims of creationists are indeed subject to scientific inquiry through geology, cosmology, evolutionary science, paleontology, etc.) Really, though, if you look hard enough at most of these fringe claims, they fall apart. If you want to jump through enough mental hoops, you can believe anything (the fact that there is still a Flat Earth Society should substantiate that), but anyone predisposed to look critically at the evidence presented without preconceived biases can pretty easily suss out what the truth is.

Quoting AemJeff: Why does every crackpot decide that Occam's Razor is only good for the next guy? There must be some Russell/Occam barber paradox at work here.

It is an amazing aspect of the human brain that people can find every fault in the world with the other guy's wacky beliefs, but when the same or similar flaws in reasoning are applied to their own beliefs, they shut down.

I would add that my dad worked for Grumman/Pratt&Whitney as a metallurgist and worked on metals for the LEM, based on specific conditions of the moon's atmosphere. So while the gov't could have doled out huge contracts to employ people like him for nothing more than a farce, is technically possible...I doubt it.

I know I've said it before, but I highly recommend George Johnson's "Architect's of Fear" for an excellent look into conspiracy theories. His focus is more on geo-political, mason-illuminati/zionist/council-on-foreign-relations type theories, but the spirit is no different than the science-based fringe theories. He touches very well on what exactly makes people so eager to embrace these theories that stretch the limits of logic (to put it mildly.)

Quoting bjkeefe: The Sentinel was a great story. I'd hate to have to choose between that and 2001. I still re-read both, so I guess I don't have to. ;^)

While I hardly read fiction any more (for some reason I just got burnt out). This thread made me think of sci-fi fiction from my past. If I was asked to recommend a few, they might be: The Enemy Stars - Poul Anderson
Way Station - Clifford Simak
The Gap Cycle (series) - Stephen R Donaldson
Starship Troopers - Robert A Heinlein (great novel, film of same title is almost unrelated)
A Fall Of Moondust - Arthur C Clarke
Imperial Earth - Arthur C Clarke
Whipping Star - Frank Herbert
The Caves Of Steel - Issac Asimov
Foundation (series) - Issac Asimov
Footfall - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
PRESS ENTER■ - John Varley
The Stainless Steal Rat - Harry Harrison
Bill, The Galactic Hero - Harry Harrison Short Stories Anniversary - Issac Asimov
The Sentinal - Arthur C Clarke yeah, it's been a while since I cracked a sci-fi book.

Quoting harkin: While I hardly read fiction any more (for some reason I just got burnt out). This thread made me think of sci-fi fiction from my past.

Thanks for the implicit recommendations on your list. I haven't read the ones by Anderson, Donaldson, Herbert, one of the two by Harrison, and I've never even heard of Varley. The ones on your list that I have read I'd agree were all at least very good, and most I'd call great. I'm interested that Starship Troopers was the Heinlein book that came to your mind. I thought that was good, but I liked at least half a dozen others better -- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, The Number of the Beast, Friday, Stranger in a Strange Land, Citizen of the Galaxy, Farnham's Freehold, Time Enough for Love, all the novellas in The Past Through Tomorrow, Double Star, Door Into Summer, Job: A Comedy of Justice ... okay, that was more than six. I could say something similar, but less pronounced, about Clarke. Maybe more precisely, just add The Fountains of Paradise, Rendezvous with Rama, 2001, 2010, and 2061. and Childhood's End, at least. (Maybe you just didn't make a comprehensive list, and I'll spare you a list of the twenty or so other Asimovs

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks for the implicit recommendations on your list. I haven't read the ones by Anderson, Donaldson, Herbert, one of the two by Harrison, and I've never even heard of Varley.

The ones on your list that I have read I'd agree were all at least very good, and most I'd call great.

I'm interested that Starship Troopers was the Heinlein book that came to your mind. I thought that was good, but I liked at least half a dozen others better --
;^)

The ones I listed were just ones that came to mind when I posted but on refelction they all are among my favorites. I really think Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's best not because of the science but more for the first person view of the soldier and how interstellar war may be more complicated but grunts are still grunts and sergeants are still sergeants.....and the enemy is still the enemy. Most of my reader friends claim Stranger In A Strange Land is Heinlein's masterpiece but I couldn't get into it. I much prefer ST, Friday and Job
Varley is very very good. I can't believe PRESS ENTER■ has not yet been made into a film because

Quoting harkin: The ones I listed were just ones that came to mind when I posted but on refelction they all are among my favorites.

Ah. Good.

I really think Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's best not because of the science but more for the first person view of the soldier and how interstellar war may be more complicated but grunts are still grunts and sergeants are still sergeants.....and the enemy is still the enemy.

Yeah. I liked a lot of his stuff, even primarily, for his understanding of people, too.

Most of my reader friends claim Stranger In A Strange Land is Heinlein's masterpiece but I couldn't get into it.

I could imagine that.

Varley is very very good. I can't believe PRESS ENTER■ has not yet been made into a film because it is a great suspense story and not very long.

I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks again.

Quoting bjkeefe: I could imagine that.

That may be the funniest thing you've ever said to me. $BP

Quoting bjkeefe: I highly recommend, either before reading or after, listening to Carl's appearance on This American Life, conducted right after P. Rex was released.

I've bookmarked it. Thanks Brendan.

Quoting Nate: Such a great show. ...Fox could have had a gold mine on their hands with that one, but really screwed the pooch in how they handled it....I keep hoping they will make a sequel to Serenity (or better yet a trilogy), but I am expecting disappointment.

I suspect we can overrun the BH server with this topic Nate. Like many, I didn't even know about the show when it was on T.V. and only found out about it through word of mouth later when a friend gave me the videos. I've never mourned a T.V. program as much as I mourn FireFly, and I don't think Serenity the film quite captured for newbies all that was good about the it, as you can only gain full appreciation of FireFly from the serial narrative arc of the characters. Yet another reason why Fox sucks.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Like many, I didn't even know about the show when it was on T.V. and only found out about it through word of mouth later when a friend gave me the videos.

I was the same way. I ended up buying the DVDs of the show (and documentary about it) though when I figured out how good the show was.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I've never mourned a T.V. program as much as I mourn FireFly, and I don't think Serenity the film quite captured for newbies all that was good about the it, as you can only gain full appreciation of FireFly from the serial narrative arc of the characters.

Oh, I totally agree. Serenity was like season 2 of the show. (admittedly crammed into one movie) It is very enjoyable if you have seen the first (only) season of the show, but there are a lot of references people would not understand if they had not seen the show first.

Quoting Nate: Oh, I totally agree. Serenity was like season 2 of the show. (admittedly crammed into one movie) It is very enjoyable if you have seen the first (only) season of the show, but there are a lot of references people would not understand if they had not seen the show first.

For anyone who doesn't already know: the full run of Firefly is available on Hulu. That's where I watched it (after learning about it from the good people at Poli-Sci-Fi-Radio). If you've never watched something on Hulu before, I'd say give it a shot -- they do Web TV about as well as anyone does.