1. Beware the Believers

Comment #152690 by sven_der_sar on March 31, 2008 at 11:00 am

My opinion:

Quite clever, somewhat funny.

Arrogance? Please show me a rapper who *doesn't* show arrogance. Strutting around like the top dog, "he's smarter than you, he's got a science degree"? Show me a rapper who understates his achievements and abilities. Every group has "the baddest posse in town", and this is achieved by simply stating it. RD and his crew's confidence is a desirable quality, not ridicule.

Symbols of money and greed? Again, take a look at any form of rap culture (Laurence posted pics). Every rapper came from the bronx and started with nothing. Every rapper shows off his pimpin' ride (expensive, tinted, black car), bling (jewelery), grillz (gold plated teeth), and girls (these ladies don't come for free, yo). Again, these are presented with respect. Presenting RD and co as such isn't ridicule.

As for the individual selections? Richard, there's not much meaning to be attributed to each individual choice of clothing etc. Sam got a grill because *someone* in a rap group always has a grill. Eugenie got the bikini cos there's *always* the girl that's showin' some skin. Dan got the hat cos there's always one with a cane and a pimp hat. Darwin got the coat cos there's always "big daddy G" to throw down some lines in a deeper voice that the rest of crew. If I was gonna make a humorous crew from the main science players, I'd end up with the same stereotypes (but I'd miss the clever details like Hitchens' "I love scotch" headband).

The expelled reference? Well, it's not as clear cut, but I don't think it's advertising. The "questioner" isn't presented in a kind light, nor a sympathetic one. I think it's primarily just setting up the storyline. I think it's quite a stretch to propose it as the machine of evil materialism, and (somewhat) more likely for it to be the machine of logic or the machine of uncalculating natural selection.

So to conclude my original opinion:
Quite clever - the fitting of that many mentions of standard atheist arguments along with mentions of darwin and his travels into a rap is no simple feat.
Somewhat funny - sight gags of seeing academics in rap attire and behaving like typical rappers, the joke about the dyslexic hating "dog" ("hating" is much easier to fit into a rap than "disbelieving in"). I wasn't LOLling excessively, but these two made me laugh.

And finally, I admire the video work. No, it's not ground breaking (the style has been used before, as some people have pointed out), but it's still well produced and would have required quite some effort.

2. Gay scientists isolate Christian gene

Comment #151987 by sven_der_sar on March 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm

is this like the onion or something?

This is CNNNN, Aussie comedy more widely known now for their "The Chaser's War on Everything". It's great to see these guys getting exposure outside Oz... some really good stuff :)

3. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136905 by sven_der_sar on March 2, 2008 at 2:32 am

Re brue68:

When talking about seatbelts, there is a very good reason why other drivers' (and passengers') choices affect you.

The car crash injury mode most likely to cause occupant fatality is impact - primarily head impact (with the roof, side pillar, steering wheel etc). Manufacturers are required to pass a series of head impactor tests to make sure that impact with various parts of the cabin remain under a certain HIC (head injury criterion). Seatbelts offer protection by keeping the occupant within the confines of the seat, and airbags offer protection from steering wheel impact. However, seatbelts offer no protection from projectiles inside the cabin.

In a front impact, the momentum of all objects not restrained by seatbelts causes them to be flung forward. For small (even heavy objects) like loose groceries this is usually not a problem as directly behind any belted passenger is a headrest or a seatback. For an unbelted back passenger *behind* a front passenger however, the front impact pulse usually carries them over (head first) the seat in front of them. As their knees and chest engage the back of the seat, their head swings downward towards the head of the occupant in front of them.

This danger still exists for other impact types and roll-overs (where any loose mass in the car can become a projectile).

Similarly, unbelted occupants can be ejected from the vehicle altogether, becoming a possible impactor for other targets outside the vehicle (including targets inside the impacting car).

In the same way that you benefit from laws preventing impaired drivers/cars from being on the road in the first place, you also benefit from others on the road (and in your car) wearing a seatbelt.

As for helmet laws for motorcycle riders, I don't know of any study on their affect on *others*, so... go for it? ;)

4. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136569 by sven_der_sar on March 1, 2008 at 12:31 pm

And just to clarify for me personally:

I think this is a very good mode of operation.

When I say this I mean that I support a mandatory seatbelt law because I'm satisfied that it improves a society. If studies showed an overall benefit to recreational drugs, I'd support legalisation. I'm all for a government changing their mind based on evidence.
As for a government's stance *before* such evidence? Well, I think that's partly good guesswork and partly luck. But as long as standards for acceptable evidence are sufficiently high, I see no benefit in keeping laws static for posterity.

5. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136559 by sven_der_sar on March 1, 2008 at 12:14 pm

"Students Punished After Buying Lunch With Pennies". We should start finding out how many deaths happen as a result of people dropping pennies from high places and then outlaw pennies.

Yes, if there's gonna be a debate then we absolutely should start finding out how many deaths are caused by pennies. If the *evidence* points to these deaths overshadowing the benefit of the penny to society, then yes, *we should* outlaw the penny. Luckily however, it seems that pennies are not the major threat to society that they could be, and are therefore not outlawed.

I think this is a very good mode of operation.

I would (quite respectfully) like to hear if pro gun ownership people would agree with this. Ie, *if* objective evidence pointed to a society being better off without guns (or restricted in some way that differs with the current constitution), would they agree to a change in their constitution to reflect this?

Obviously the interpretation of the words "objective" and "better off" can differ within a population, but I'm talking hypothetically for the moment.

Incidentally, when climbing the Sydney Harbour Bridge, climbers are required to remove all possible projectiles (cameras, phones, coins) from their pockets.

6. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132832 by sven_der_sar on February 25, 2008 at 9:01 am

I see your point here Steve.

Firstly though, while any one display of [insert phenomena here] would not necessarily be evidence for one particular deity, I do know that as a human I'm capable of credulity, so I can certainly envisage some highly improbable events that would at least shift my credulometer a notch or two along the sliding scale of 'belief'.

Interestingly enough I think the things that would most effectively do this would need to be more personal than any of the neat tricks with gravity or non-predicted demonstrations to Romans etc. For instance I'd be intrigued to see the sun doing backflips across the sky, but I would be much more impressed if I specifically asked for it first. Of course, I'd be giving my own mental state a thorough once-twice-and-thrice-over, but if things seemed normal and this new phenomena made it through a (very, very) rigorous test course of new requests that I'd normally consider impossible, then I think I'd conclude:
a) My mental state is beyond the point of self-check
b) I've just found evidence of some kind of 'higher power' (that's answering my requests)

Note that b) could very well end up being a very elaborate yet perfectly natural [something], but I think that given my new believer status I'd allow myself the indulgence of a little flexibility in word meaning and just call the thing a god anyway ;)

7. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132721 by sven_der_sar on February 25, 2008 at 6:55 am

Re: Comment #132704 by Geoff

Geoff, I think in this particular instance "showing" or "arguing" is a futile exercise. If you take it that they are actually serious, then *any* attempt to "show them why their mindset is wrong" is by their own definition unsound and inadmissible. Quite a tough little circular ride to get in on. But wait! Maybe you can demonstrate how circular this logic is.... oh, no... any such demonstration is inadmissible. It seems the ticket gate for the circular ride is a merry-go-round that doesn't stop :(
Maybe the controls for the merry-go-round are behind the revolving doors over yonder ;)

8. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132589 by sven_der_sar on February 25, 2008 at 2:24 am

Richard, this was the most easily digested (and remembered) new chunk of information that I gathered from The Ancestor's Tale.
Cheers and well done... I found it a particularly enjoyable passage.

9. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132577 by sven_der_sar on February 25, 2008 at 2:00 am

Wow. I honestly couldn't work out if this article was written in seriousness or with some kind of ironic "wouldn't it be ridiculous if people actually thought this way" twist. I mean, to put forward the notion that

... an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith.

and then talk of naivety and openness to evidence has to be a joke... right?

10. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131208 by sven_der_sar on February 22, 2008 at 4:01 am

Excellent video - entertaining because it's informative. Well done Richard, this is exactly the thing to aid the public understanding of science.
And well done Josh, very nice production. I would echo Steve's warnings about falling into a youtube-like slideshow, although I found that most of the stills in this video informed the audio nicely. As long as you keep that relationship and mix in sufficient live video, I think things will (as they currently do) look very professional indeed.

11. Science Debate 2008

Comment #122889 by sven_der_sar on February 6, 2008 at 8:57 am

In case any one else is confused:

Yeah, sorry about that... I just picked out an announcement email mid-stream and submitted it as the article.

As a non US citizen I don't get a vote, but I still think this is a Good Thing(tm)

12. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116705 by sven_der_sar on January 27, 2008 at 7:45 am

I find this the weirdest part of the article:

But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.

I'm not sure what's being suggested here, but my take on it is that the father is so devout that if his son doesn't follow the same religion, he will have trouble caring for him!? No, wait, that's too harsh... it seems that the religion's not the point... the point is the circumcision. The father doesn't mind the boy's religion, only his foreskin.
Or is it only the involvement of the court... The article also seems to suggest that even if the kid chooses to keep all of his penis, the court may rule to take it away on the grounds that they suspect the father'll disown him if it stays?

Either way, the kid loses... :(

13. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116698 by sven_der_sar on January 27, 2008 at 7:02 am

Still, it doesn't help me understand violent sports any better.

I'll take a (completely non-violent) shot at that one...
First an evolutionary perspective... well, why do we enjoy chess and other puzzles? I'd put forward the hypothesis that it's a throwback to some primitive evolutionary 'drives' to solve puzzles and find the cheese at the end of the maze. Many of these challenges would have involved physical components as well (evading the predator, catching the prey), and I can see how performing these physical actions (some of which may have been violent in some way) could be 'programmed into us'. My hypothesis is of course that we reproduce those actions (and their rewards in terms of adrenaline etc) in many of our sports.

And now, just to stretch things a little and try and claim some of the 'ephemeral' where it's possibly not due:

- A well planned chess move turning the game your way... holding your nerve - and the bow - to hit the bullseye from 50m... the feeling of connectedness from timing a show jumping jump well... the confidence gained from completing a marathon... the running backhand lob that the other guy can only sit and watch... the well-timed sliding tackle that takes the ball - and with it the striker's legs - away at the last moment... the acutely angled hockey shot - deliberately in off the goalie's helmet... the rampaging football run, perfectly timed to bounce off one defender and over the next... the boxing to and fro, swaying from one punch to land the reply on the point of the chin... ouch :)

So there's my explanation, given as a little bit of a sliding scale :)

Oh, and personally I don't play much higher on this scale than soccer (and yes, mainly cos the ones further along would just get me hurt), but I can definitely understand the allure of pretty much all sports I can think of.

14. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116685 by sven_der_sar on January 27, 2008 at 5:37 am

Re the last video:
Why 42 blue boxes/modules?
Theory A: They need to be X metres apart and fit into the 27km track with all the sensors etc, so 42 just happened to match the space available.
Theory B: It's an obscure Douglas Adams reference.
Any light sheddable?

15. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97773 by sven_der_sar on December 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm

And it's all happening because of a 10-minute movie that hasn't even been made yet

...

In 2005, cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper led to Danish embassies being set on fire, multi-million-dollar anti-Danish consumer boycotts in the Middle East, and hundreds of deaths in riots across the Muslim world.

I am of course picking these two sentences out without much context, but I don't feel that there was much context provided... I think Hitchens would point out that this article leans towards identifying the objects of free speech as a cause of violence, yet lets the perpetrators of the violence itself off the hook.

Cartoons and unmade movies don't cause violence (as this article is subtly suggesting) - extremism can.

16. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96133 by sven_der_sar on December 10, 2007 at 3:31 am

An excellent show. There were a couple of trying guests (particularly the Fox News guy), but Richard was able to answer calmly and to the point. Well done mate!

I found it a little amusing when the man from Poland asked a well-formed question ('what would you ask god if it turns out he exists etc'), got a well-formed answer ('why didn't you give evidence etc'), and then went on with quite a soliloquy ('I believe so there')... listen for the host waiting for him to take a breath so he can interrupt and move on :)

It was good to hear voices from around the world on this one (of the callers with opposing views the girl from Istanbul sounded particularly intelligent - pro free-speech, and readily admitting that reading the book should precede such speech if its to be very useful).

17. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92951 by sven_der_sar on December 1, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Looks like Dinesh stuffed yesterday's clothes into the shoulders of his suit coat.

Mango, I noticed this too. A kind hypothesis is that it's just a poorly sized suit. An unkind hypothesis might take into account other aspects of his debating technique (decibel level, rapid fire assertions etc), and suggest that the suit size is chosen deliberately, offering a bigger on-stage presence than has been afforded by natural selection...

18. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92819 by sven_der_sar on December 1, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Argh! End of part 11, Dinesh is talking about the caveman who's sphere of understanding is limited to the 2 mile radius around the cave. In this instance Dinesh was suggesting that the caveman should believe something beyond this sphere. I just wanted to whisper the word "evidence" in Dinesh's ear... well, maybe not whisper.
I found Dinesh's shouting was quite irritating, but I do like his pronunciation of the word univoice (sic)

19. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40057 by sven_der_sar on May 12, 2007 at 10:55 pm

To expand on tomwb...

A (the?) major point that Sharpton makes is that Hitchens attacks religion (mainly through its texts) during the debate, but the title of his book, and the title of the debate, is "God is not great".

Firstly, if Sharpton is going to argue purely on the title of the debate, then there will need to be a definition of "God". The natural assumption would be to define this god in terms of its texts (which are seen as the word of god, and that you can only 'know' god through these texts etc). To take this assumption would mean Sharpton should have at least tried to answer more of Hitchens' points, rather than discard them as misapplications of religion.
A second definition (which seems to be what Sharpton took for a god he considers great and worthy of defending), is a personal god, completely devoid of association with texts, rituals, and dogma.
The point here is that *this* definition is most certainly not what is attacked in Hitchens' book. Therefore Sharpton decided to defend a notion that wasn't attacked in the book, and then argued that *Hitchens* was missing the target in his attacks. To stretch an analogy, this is akin to claiming to defend Australia by parking an army in New Zealand, then further claiming victory because the attacker is actually attacking the wrong country.

And if Sharpton is responding to the book title (rather than the debate title), he would be wise to include the subtitle "why religion poisons everything", rather than dismiss all points that referenced religion itself as misapplications.

Cheers,
Sven