Carolyn Porco examines how science and scientists are portrayed in the film industry. She also explains how she interprets some of the stunning imagery taken by the Cassini mission to Saturn and the outer planets, which she oversees. Download amazing Cassini images at: ciclops.org Find Cassini-inspired Star Trek Imagery — the USS Enterprise and Saturn — at diamondskyproductions.com Carolyn @ Twitter: twitter.com Carolyn @ Facebook: www.facebook.com Download Quicktime version (720p): c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com richarddawkins.net http atheistalliance.org Filmed and Edited by JOSH TIMONEN
On April 10, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
Carolyn Porco examines how science and scientists are portrayed in the film industry. She also explains how she interprets some of the stunning imagery taken by the Cassini mission to Saturn and the outer planets, which she oversees. Download amazing Cassini images at: ciclops.org Find Cassini-inspired Star Trek Imagery — the USS Enterprise and Saturn [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Amateur.
Science is limited in its applicability, but not as limited as religion would like it to be. And places where it isn’t applicable are taken up by other noble pursuits…leaving no room for religion
She wants Hollywood movies depicting; “the person who dedicates his or her whole life, (80 hrs/week) making tremendous sacrifices (bow ties & delivery pizza again) to find out some simple (1 cell critter) fundamental (what? Fundie?) truth (yea, Fundie!) however small it might be (microscopic) about the nature of nature (too much nature for movie – thats documentary) only proved in the end (Grand Finale = exhibit A?) to be wrong (hero wrong? sad ending?)
Now we know why Hollywood makes
films with “fiction” after the word science
Long hours of looking at amoebas, eating pizza while wearing a bow tie & proved definitely wrong by the fashion police. All in a Wild, Wild Kingdom setting… & Fundamentalism too? Movie goers find it more entertaining to pay for the $15,000 Coke & the $25,000 Pop Corn, to where they’ll be going back for 3rds
In Hollywood, science films must have fictional space ships shooting many lasers & blowing a bunch of shit up. Big fictional boobs work too
She can leave drops of syrup and other food bits on the kitchen floor. Also, set out Roach Motels and other roach traps
If after a period of time, the drops of syrup and other food bits are still undisturbed and there exist no roaches within the traps… then her roaches have moved on to greener pastures, having better cooking and real Canadian Maple syrup
She said, “one encourages uncritical acceptance of ideas & the other seriously discourages it”
“the danger is that uncritical thinking has been, and is still, extremely prevalent”
Through critical thinking, I have arrived at a particular understanding that the uncritical thinkers have yet to understand. Which is…
Since man is limited in his powers & abilities, is why any creation or construct of man, is also limited in its powers & capabilities. Thus, Science, although a fantastic tool, is indeed limited in its applicability
However, the materialist has concluded that the entirety of existence/reality is determined by the applicability limitations of Science
Thus the arrogance from ignorance of the Materialist is revealed. Since if the whole of existence is determined by the limits of science. Then, science is applicable to the whole of existence. Thus, apparently, man has created a tool which is unlimited in its power & ability. Which in turn, would make man omnipotent, for his tool’s powers are his own
Just think, since science is an extremely recent creation, in relation to the extent of time past. It would mean that during all of the time prior to when science was created, the whole of reality, by pure chance, simply happened to exist at a measure that is precisely the same to which science, upon its arrival, would be applicable
I’m not even going to ask! Yea, I know, for if “Abiogenesis, Ancestral Bacterial Forebearers & 4 legged whales are plausible in their probabilities”…bla bla bla
I would marry her not her daughter. Imagine the debates, talks and discussions you could have with her looking at the stars!
wow those are actual pictures taken in space of Saturn by the Cassini space craft. The picture quality nowadays is incredible especially since this is in space.
The way she ended was extremely poetic.
…A catholic parent may have a gay son or daughter, and in the majority of cases they don’t care – they still love ‘em and accept it. But they still stay religious even the ideas are vehemently opposed, why? The fact is they don’t really think about their beliefs to any great degree, if they we’re trenchent believers they’d disown their child or kill them, but most don’t give a crap and the slight possibility of hellfire is enough to keep them just about connected.
I absolutely agree with her idea that religion is an embedded cultural phenomenon. A bit like the language you speak or the food you eat, you won’t really question it or think about it that much – you just speak it and eat it respectively in the same way you believe it. You’re brought up to do all the above things. Think about it for a second, the vast majority of religious people in the world are liberal, not too serious believers, they pick and choose based on their circumstances…
If she has a daughter i will marry her
@godofthisshit I have no idea, why?
Does Dawkins have glaucoma?
Absolutely amazing.
Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennet/Harris has written and debated for years about this matter. This lovely lady pealed herself to the core of the issue in 40 minutes.
Probably the most objective, cut through lecture I’ve ever has the pleasure of listening to.
Amazing . We certainly need a new Carl
Segan. Absolutely beautiful and moving pictures and words.
What movies and TV shows has this lady been watching? On TV, and in the movies, I’ve seen a great number of heroic scientists, who were anything but frumpy, nerdy, or evil. This goes back to movies and shows from the 1950s. Entertainment fare with evil, or nerdy scientists is usually campy, or humorous, at best.
Maybe at first I implicitly accused you of sexism, but I have already apologized and clarified my argument. I thought the discussion had moved beyond that. I’m not sure you read my reply closely enough, because you didn’t address my points about social stigma (“science is not a cool career for girls”) and the importance of creativity and imagination in science. At any rate, I understand what you’re saying, but I would still like to see statistics.
well, it is just an opinion but its an opinion based on observation and the observations of others (such as scientists) it wasnt based on me thinking my sex is superior
Also, I apologize if you took that as an accusation of being sexist. There’s a big difference between a sexist person and a sexist remark. I meant to say that your statement seemed to contain more opinion than fact, and that it could be perceived as slightly sexist since you provided no argument or statistical evidence. Your analogy is flawed, however. We’re discussing cognitive abilities, which vary much more than anatomy (ability to get pregnant) between individuals and the two [main] genders.
I don’t know loads about it yet, either, though I do hope to study neuroscience in grad school. Yes, the neurophysiology of men and women is a bit different in ways, but I think a higher proportion of women than is currently represented in our society is capable of learning to be effective scientists. I think, as nogod65 implied, social stigma is mostly at fault, not psychological differences. Besides, creativity and imagination are no less important than logic and reason in science.
i dont about it in great detail but woman seem to prefer to use their right hemisphere of the brain responsible for creativity, imagination men prefer to use the left hemisphere responsible for logic, language ect.
google “Neurobehavioral Hemispheric prefrences” or “brain hemisphere male female”. is it sexest to say only females can get pregnant too?
@ robertwc82:
That was a rather blunt and simplistic claim. This is a SCIENCE channel, and as such, I think you should explain what kinds of views you’re talking about, then provide a clear argument supported by sufficient evidence. After all, emotions can be accompanied by logical thought and vice-versa. This request for clarification applies just as well to the reply WavegirlThinks posted, however glad I am that she reprimanded your apparent sexism. (I’m a man, by the way.)