11 of 15
11
Suggestions for Guests (Merged)
Posted: 12 April 2010 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-04-16

Any chance we can pin up top a thread dedicated to suggested topics and speakers? It could be a way for the hosts to run options by us listeners to avoid train wrecks like the Altizer track wreck. It would also give listeners a chance to drive content. Just a thought.

Jordan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2010 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
Jordan - 12 April 2010 11:45 AM

Any chance we can pin up top a thread dedicated to suggested topics and speakers? It could be a way for the hosts to run options by us listeners to avoid train wrecks like the Altizer track wreck. It would also give listeners a chance to drive content. Just a thought.

No problem. I can pin this to the top.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2010 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-04-16

Thanks!

Excerpted from my post elsewhere, here’re some topics that Chris could address: church-state separation issues regarding ongoing faith-based initiatives; the FDA and alternative medicine; where we are on stem cell research policies; or what about those chimeras? Or in broader terms, how about science attitudes by demographic (and perhaps over time); science education variations state by state or nation by nation? Surely there’re experts in all of these areas just waiting for your call! I can snoop around to put some names on those experts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2010 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  56
Joined  2010-02-11

Thanks for the suggestions. Believe me, I’m reading and watching…..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2010 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

What about the ‘Discovery’ Institute? There is a lawyer in Seattle who keeps an eye on them by the name of Maria Maltseva, I heard her in an interview yesterday, she would be a good candidate.

Advances in DNA identification of species has shown some unsuspected relationships, leading to some reclassifications. I can’t remember where I have heard interviews on that subject, but it was very interesting.

Greg Laden is a great interview on biological anthropology. He has a popular blog too.

I don’t remember whether Dr. Paul Offit has been interviewed on POI, but given the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield and the disordered state of the anti-vax movement at this time, it is due to be revisited to look at the damage, and damage control efforts.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2010 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Chris Mooney,
Considering the following post under General Discussion I would think this could be a great topic for your show sometime.

dougsmith - 21 April 2010 07:33 AM

Are people more likely to believe something if they are told that science has disproven it? Perhaps. See HERE:

Study Suggests More People Willing to Believe in ESP When Told It’s Been Scientifically Disproven
Newly published research on belief in ESP suggests a public disregard for—and perhaps even hostility toward—the scientific consensus.
April 20, 2010

Scientists wondering just how low faith in their field has fallen will get some uncomfortable answers in a study examining belief in Extrasensory Perception (ESP), recently published in the online journal Current Research in Social Psychology. ...

The original paper is HERE.

This result could definitely bear on issues of AGW and other controversies.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2010 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Ooo, Ooo, I recently stumbled upon another suggestion for an interesting examination of science in action in our real world.

The DDT debate - savior or villain
or is it more complicated?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well Naomi Oreskes did a pretty good job of covering that.
Link here

Thank you Chris

[ Edited: 10 June 2010 10:46 AM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2010 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4840
Joined  2007-10-05

Chris,

Get Jerry Coyne or Ophelia Benson on your show and debate the ethics of science journalists taking money from evangelical Christians apologetics organizations. Follow it up with an episode debating the ethics of the so-called New Atheists.

Just a couple of ideas to mix it up a bit and get away from the weekly Climate Change shows.

Sincerely,

Darron

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3054
Joined  2010-04-26

That would be nice.  I’m sick of hearing about global warming.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 160 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

you again - get a job  LOL

But, yes I must agree Darron has a great suggestion there. 
Its got my vote.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 161 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3054
Joined  2010-04-26

I have a job.  It’s just boring so I spend all my time at work cruising the interwebs for chicks.  Or annoying people on message boards.  I forget.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 162 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Oh so you’re doing this on job time… I see   tongue wink
and I know the chicks get old when you can’t touch them   smile

You just got me remembering something
check this out it gets good at 1:50.  Don’t know why but it popped into my mind’s eye.
cheese

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 163 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2010-02-02
DarronS - 21 June 2010 08:38 PM

Chris,

Get Jerry Coyne or Ophelia Benson on your show and debate the ethics of science journalists taking money from evangelical Christians apologetics organizations. Follow it up with an episode debating the ethics of the so-called New Atheists.

Just a couple of ideas to mix it up a bit and get away from the weekly Climate Change shows.

Sincerely,

Darron

Indeed. Also, please touch on the ethics of CFI employees taking Templeton money (let’s be explicit about it), unfairly maligning outspoken atheists by taking cheap shots and characterizing their views falsely at every turn, and the wisdom of suggesting that a large portion of the people likely to make up CFI membership should be quiet and asked not to speak up because they’re extreme and “unhelpful.”

I don’t think Chris Mooney would be the right host for that week’s show.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2010 05:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 164 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  56
Joined  2010-02-11

Thanks for this thread. If I might make a comment or two…

I’ve done 9 Point of Inquiry shows so far. I only see two that are directly about climate change (Michael Mann and Bill McKibben). You might add Naomi Oreskes (though her book is about misinformation across a large array of issues, including climate) and Eli Kintisch (though geoengineering is, to me, a subject unto itself, though obviously climate related). But calling it weekly climate change shows is a bit much. And the next show is certainly not about climate change.

Also, for my views on the Templeton Cambridge fellowship, please see this long post

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/10/science-and-religion-on-the-cam-part-ii/

thanks

chris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2010 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 165 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Ahh, the Templeton money thing.  As an outsider I’ve found this reoccurring bitch feast interesting.  Though I’ve yet to hear anything truly damning just stuff irritating to the “true atheists”
I myself am only atheist so far as the “god of the throne” is concerned and have the feeling there is a lot beyond our ability to comprehend and I still think “absolute” atheism does more to disconnect a person from the universe and flow of time than anything else.

For those who won’t bother to look up Mooney’s article here are a few paragraphs I thought were quite reasonable.

But here’s the problem: You can’t both denounce the fellowship for being intellectually tilted and also boycott it, thereby refusing to help lend it more of the balance you claim it needs.

But that doesn’t make theology absolutely worthless, because even if you don’t accept the premises, the field does feature rigorous attempts to clarify and explicate religious views and doctrines–views and doctrines embraced by much or most of humanity. We need to understand these views, if only because they are so prevalent. And as atheists, shouldn’t we want religious arguments to have their most articulate and nuanced presentation before we reject them? Academic theology is valuable for these reasons, and worth at least listening to and understanding.

Also on the journalistic front, it is important to note that the work which emerges from this fellowship is not editorially controlled in any way. We are not required to reach particular positions or defend particular views. The idea is merely to get a chance, which one might not have otherwise, to study one or more aspects of the science and religion question in an academic context–and then write about them.

To be sure, the fellowship certainly helps to generate more journalism about science and religion than might exist otherwise.  But I would say that more journalism on this subject is a good thing, given the vast misunderstandings and tensions around the issue.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 15
11