best,
Tori

Have fun!

FYI, I’m intrigued by your titles but can’t access any of the entries except the latest. Should we know a password?

-Irene

Part I could benefit from some feedback from religious historians.
Part 2 could benefit from feedback from physicists
Part 3 could benefit from feedback from economists, economic historians, war historians, and political scientists

and that’s just a start.

I think Wei might have some good insights on the “conspiracy theory” flavor of this whole film, especially since Peter Joseph, the writer and director, relies heavily on conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Jordan Maxwell.

Thanks for the post. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Cornelia Dean’s lecture. I thought her insights on “problems with the public” regarding science were very interesting, especially the comments on the public’s highly misguided ideas about risk. As a nurse, I have definitely noticed this concept played out in people’s ideas about preventing disease (for example, a family that limited travel for fear of the bird flu while smoking heavily around their children). She made a great case for interdisciplinarity by stating that journalists could play a major role in dispelling many of the public’s problems with understanding science, but then outlining the problems that journalists inherently face in doing so, which in turn could be dispelled with the help of scientists.

I am interested to know if any of you scientists have faced the Carl Sagan problem she outlined about colleagues being less than supportive of you bringing your research and knowledge to the media?

Anyway, thanks again, Beth. I think listening to this lecture was definitely time well spent. I would be very interested in hearing from Cornelia Dean at the symposium (I only wish I could be there!)

Melissa

Namely, the secular and the religious. I am a student in the divinity school and in the psychology schools and would love to reflect on the divide in today’s culture between secular and religious domains and study. I’ll keep this short so more people reply, but maybe one group could reflect on what “two cultures” they see in their lives and I could talk about those and how my work as an ordained deacon in the Methodist church serving as a psychologist would seek to bridge that gap.

See you all Sunday,
Laura Barnard

Here’s some answers:

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
Yes. Although I wouldn’t feel bad if we didn’t. The consequences are, I think, what is important. That said, I think morality isn’t about thought so much as feeling. So when you choose something because it ‘feels’ right, then maybe you’ve gotten closer than most of us, however inconsistent it is with other things you determine to be ‘moral.’

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
Meh, you’re smuggling in a lot of concepts when you say ‘person’ and ‘you.’ Also ’same.’

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
Insofar as anything is. I’m a realist, so I’ll have to say it is a collection of particles that really exists and we see as a computer screen. I can never see the thing-in-itself, but that doesn’t mean my senses don’t really give me a pretty good idea of what’s really there.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
I don’t really see how this takes away choice. Moreover, I don’t see what makes choice so special that everyone wants to save it. See answer 2.