The prospect of the Cultural Olympiad accompanying the London Olympics in two years' time fills me with an unreasonable sense of dread. The official website says it will be "a 12-week cultural celebration across the whole of the UK. At the heart of the festival will be a programme of commissions by some of the finest artists in the world in events ranging from pop to film, from visual arts and fashion to theatre, from circus to carnival, from opera to digital innovation".There's nothing wrong with any of that, yet at the back of my mind is the global embarrassment of the dome and the utter emptiness of its endeavour, together with the mild resentment - no doubt a hangover from school open days - at having to put on a good show for visitors. Don't get me wrong, I like the arts and I am as patriotic as the next person, if awkwardly so. It's just that I know that the commissars of culture who are planning these events fail to understand what is truly interesting and original about Britain.
The prospect of the Cultural Olympiad accompanying the London Olympics in two years' time fills me with an unreasonable sense of dread. The official website says it will be "a 12-week cultural celebration across the whole of the UK. At the heart of the festival will be a programme of commissions by some of the finest artists in the world in events ranging from pop to film, from visual arts and fashion to theatre, from circus to carnival, from opera to digital innovation".
There's nothing wrong with any of that, yet at the back of my mind is the global embarrassment of the dome and the utter emptiness of its endeavour, together with the mild resentment - no doubt a hangover from school open days - at having to put on a good show for visitors. Don't get me wrong, I like the arts and I am as patriotic as the next person, if awkwardly so. It's just that I know that the commissars of culture who are planning these events fail to understand what is truly interesting and original about Britain.
for the non-Brits here, these are both presenters with a schtick for being blokes with spanners who make things keep to the Fen Causeway
(LOL)
He's getting long in the tooth now but what about James Burke instead?
but the other two have an appeal that lifts it out of the geek zone keep to the Fen Causeway
But he did have some useful insights that could be understand by a large section of all viewers, and the series were well shot with a lot of production value. However, they would look odd if you could see them today. <ignores protestations from ATinNM that he's still happily watching reruns on KNMD, out there in the desert> You can't be me, I'm taken
I don't have to watch re-runs because I own the series. So there, :-þ nyah-nyah neener-neener.
Of course they look dated and of course the Gosh-Wow is So-What and We Know More Now and all the rest of it ... Connections was shot in the mid-70s fer crying out loud.
I don't know his intention. Overtly the series was about change not science ... 'tho the viewer learned a bit about science along the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtWVfTiQQW8
The title relates to the idea of paradigm shift. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
His Knowledge Web
The Knowledge Web counters the tendency of modern education to encourage specialized learning and thinking. With formal education today, learners may study either history or physics, or perhaps only Renaissance history and astrophysics," says James. "People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.
is an interesting effort. No idea how successful it has been.
I have a passion for four magazines which I subscribe to - Nature, New Scientist, Science and Scientific American - and it seems to me that the breakthroughs they report are not only underappreciated but also say much more about us and the universe than the arts ever could.
isn't helpful.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but 'Hey, it's science, therefore it's important' is so not how most people's understanding of reality works now.
At least until it falls apart on you. But by then it's too late.
The fact that the science community has failed to understand this and believes that all it has to do is present facts and people will do the right thing is literally its biggest failure of insight since the Enlightenment.
Generally, stuff that works and lasts, rather than stuff that can't and doesn't.
The fact that the science community has failed to understand this and believes that all it has to do is present facts and people will do the right thing
I don't think you're talking about scientists or the "science community" much there...
New Scientist had an interview with Phil Jones of Climategate recently and he said that he was very surprised by it all because he'd tried to keep it all completely apolitical.
As if the biggest policy issue in history, with literally trillions of profits in non-renewables at stake, was ever going to be left to disinterested research.
Scientists have spent their time chasing after homoeopaths and astrologers because of 'fraud' while economists have blown up the economy, slashed academic spending on research, closed departments, forced PhDs who could be doing useful research into jobs in finance, or put them on the dole.
Unfortunately just because someone isn't interested in politics, doesn't mean politics isn't interested in them.
Yawn - "it"s all about narrative" yet again - and yet another unsupported generalisation about a whole "community" - a rather diverse and argumentative one, and about the whole period since the Enlightenment - which actually did much to spread scientific ideas to a wider public - a tradition continued today - see earlier reply. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Probably most scientists, wisely, wouldn't come up with generalisations like this. But it works both ways and is a reflection of the UK's very early specialisation, rather than something characteristic of scientists in general.
There is a great tradition in Britain of popularising science. Charles Darwin himself was a popular science writer, for what else was On the Origin of Species but a summary in plain English of the evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection? In the 20th century, there has been a tradition at Cambridge of science popularisers, with Arthur Eddington, James Jeans and Fred Hoyle all disseminating the biggest cosmic ideas to the general public. Hoyle even coined the term "Big Bang"during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast. And the genre remains healthy, with the big writers including Richard Dawkins, most famous for The Selfish Gene, Simon Singh for Fermat's Last Theorem and Matt Ridley for Genome. This month came the news that Graham Farmelo won the Costa Biography Award for The Strangest Man, his brilliant biography of the Spock-like physicist Paul Dirac. Independent
And the genre remains healthy, with the big writers including Richard Dawkins, most famous for The Selfish Gene, Simon Singh for Fermat's Last Theorem and Matt Ridley for Genome. This month came the news that Graham Farmelo won the Costa Biography Award for The Strangest Man, his brilliant biography of the Spock-like physicist Paul Dirac.
Independent
"in terms of political influence and persuasive power the humanities can kick science's ass all the way to Pluto and back."
Oh really, any evidence for this ? Or do you just mean that few politicians studied science ? But in relation to the formation of policy today I think the humanities as such (as opposed to political considerations) have little effect in contrast to the sciences, e.g. the NHS, agriculture, etc. - even though the sciences are too often neglected (again for political reasons). Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
500 Years of Science, Reason & Critical Thinking via the medium of gross over simplification, dodgy demarcation, glaring omission and a very tiny font.The map of modern science was created to celebrate the achievements of the scientific method through the age of reason, the enlightenment and modernity. It therefore builds upon, but fails list, the origins of many scientific disciplines such as maths and astronomy that have their origins in the ancient world.
... the origins of many scientific disciplines such as maths and astronomy ...
Math and astronomy are NOT sciences. Question: What is a science? Choose any area of investigation; you have independent and dependent variables. The investigator controls the levels of the independent variables. He then measures the responses of the system, i.e. the dependent variables. This is the essence of "controlled experiments". In math and astronomy you CANNOT conduct controlled experiments, therefore, they are NOT sciences.
And don't forget to randomize you sorry bastards. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
And I shall then pin a card to your chest saying:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.
... science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.
So I'm doing science when I'm watching cyberporn and playing with my pud ... "a highly skilled technique"? In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe.
Well that explains everything, at least, all my jacking off. I knew I wasn't just enjoying myself, that there was "a higher purpose". In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
