This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← This Remarkable Thing

This Remarkable Thing - Comments

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 1 by AsylumWarden

That was excellent. Two thumbs up!

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:16:33 UTC | #573239

bethe123's Avatar Comment 2 by bethe123

What an idiot.

Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty. The only thing remarkable is that video somehow managed to get posted on RD.net

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:17:42 UTC | #573240

The Amazing Reason's Avatar Comment 3 by The Amazing Reason

Somebody call the Muse. After they're done watching this the best music album of history will be made. :)

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:19:49 UTC | #573243

Stevezar's Avatar Comment 4 by Stevezar

That was a fantastic video, every bit as inspirational as Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot".

Comment 2 by bethe123 :

What an idiot. Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty. The only thing remarkable is that video somehow managed to get posted on RD.net

I have to wonder what video you watched, since it obviously wasn't the one posted on this thread. For example, this video goes to great pains to say "We don't know" over and over. So what were you watching when you posted this comment?

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:33:40 UTC | #573253

smegely's Avatar Comment 5 by smegely

I enjoyed the first half, the last part became a bit too evangelical for me. I don't disagree with what he was saying, just seemed a little unnecessary to keep banging on. Maybe it's because I already agree with him, and if I was actually a wavering faith-head it might be what I needed to push me that bit more. I've liked it on facebook in the hope that some of my faith-head friends will watch it. I'll see if I get any reactions.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:41:12 UTC | #573259

JS24's Avatar Comment 6 by JS24

Just fininshed watching with my kids. They loved it. They are younger, so I think they liked how pretty everything was. However, I'm glad to see they don't need a god to be in awe of universe.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:44:13 UTC | #573262

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 7 by AtheistEgbert

This was beautifully done, both the narrative and visually.

We underestimate the power of youtube. This could be viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. It is a great tool for educating about science and reason.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:47:43 UTC | #573263

Jeremy Collins's Avatar Comment 8 by Jeremy Collins

Visually stunning, and a great exposition of 'positive' atheism.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:51:14 UTC | #573264

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 9 by SomersetJohn

Comment 2 by bethe123 :

What an idiot.

Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty. The only thing remarkable is that video somehow managed to get posted on RD.net

Were we watching the same video?

PH was, admittedly, indulging in some seriously left field speculation, but he made that explicitly obvious. What I got from the vid was a tremendous sense of wonder, and not a deity in sight. It may well turn out that science one day proves all this is just wishful thinking, but unless and until then, lets keep the imagination bubbling and the wonder expanding our horizons.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:52:18 UTC | #573265

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 10 by ANTIcarrot

Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty.

Actually the video implicitly made it clear the author didn't know the answer, but that the multiverse woudl be consistant with our experience of homocentric hubris.

At least that's what I heard.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:14:30 UTC | #573280

PurplePanda's Avatar Comment 11 by PurplePanda

By extension, could our multiverse be just one of many multiverses inside a giant, er, supermultiverse?

And surely, following the same logic, it seems reasonable to think that our supermultiverse is not the only one? Perhaps it is just one of many supermultiverses inside a giant superultramegaverse.

Etc.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:15:16 UTC | #573282

Aerandir's Avatar Comment 12 by Aerandir

I encourage you to watch another work of this very interesting user - "Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?"

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:25:22 UTC | #573290

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 13 by Richard Dawkins

Inspired script. Beautifully written and illustrated. Let down, for me, by a relatively uninspired vocal delivery, and he seemed often to put the stress on the wrong word in a sentence.

Richard

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:43:12 UTC | #573300

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 14 by Richard Dawkins

Here's another video by the same man, Phil Hellenes, which is just as brilliantly written, and I think he voices this one much better. If, by any chance, he is reading this, I wonder whether he might have another go at voicing 'This Remarkable Thing', with something more like the style with which he narrated 'Science Saved my Soul'.

Richard

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:08:27 UTC | #573315

some asshole's Avatar Comment 15 by some asshole

Yeah, PH is smart but not a master of delivery.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:12:39 UTC | #573319

Sample's Avatar Comment 16 by Sample

The phrases, "appalling energy" and "hopeless gravity" in Science Saved My Soul are perhaps just the poetic expressions that Feynman lamented were lacking about science. I really liked the Feynman quote at the end of this video.

I think his style fills a niche; he rides that line between science and philosophy like a roller coaster which is a lot of fun.

Mike

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:28:01 UTC | #573328

RichardofYork's Avatar Comment 17 by RichardofYork

Is Phil Hellenes a Hellenic Philosopher?

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:39:12 UTC | #573342

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 18 by Nunbeliever

Beautifully written and illustrated. Let down, for me, by a relatively uninspired vocal delivery, and he seemed often to put the stress on the wrong word in a sentence.

Yes, I agree with you that this video is a bit sloppy compared to the other video you referred to. Still, part of Phil Hellenes appeal (in my opinion) is the fact that he is not (as far as I know) a professionally trained brodacaster but person like any of us inspired by the wonders of nature and capable of expressing it in a wonderful way! Personally I think his narratives are much more powerful in written form. Perhaps he ought to write a book?

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:49:04 UTC | #573349

JackR's Avatar Comment 19 by JackR

Yes, I also feel that while this sort of thing is heartily to be approved of, this one went on too long and could have been delivered better.

While viewing it earlier today I happened across this video which, for me, goes for a similar thing but does so rather more effectively.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:57:01 UTC | #573357

b-612's Avatar Comment 20 by b-612

I don't see why the producer considered it necessary to put people into some sort of depression with this video. This is absolutely not the way to make your case. It's too dark, too monotonous, the music is outdated and the narrator thinks too highly of his voice.

The other video referred to by RD is much better though.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:16:35 UTC | #573377

bethe123's Avatar Comment 21 by bethe123

Stevezar et al:

I have to wonder what video you watched, since it obviously wasn't the one posted on this thread -- Stevezar

We watched exactly the same video. What you take away from it depends on what you bring to it.

So, a random sampling: "Strike the string of a musical instrument at random anywhere along its length, and you're unlikely to hit a pure harmonic. But if you do it enough, sooner or later, you'll catch a harmonic more perfectly than "sagovia" or "ken wah chung" ever did."

Well, that is a false statement. For most string instruments that I am aware of, when you strike or pluck the string, you always get higher frequencies. You never get a pure harmonic. Never. No matter how many times you do it. That is a basic fact that follows from the physics of wave propagation (in this case standing waves) on a string, combined with a Fourier analysis of the wave. You would have to arrange to strike or pluck the string in a very special way to get the effect he is talking about. But he says it. It sounds plausible. And it makes a nice segue into the multi-verse which is based on string theory. But it is wrong.

Science is interesting enough to stand on its own, without the need for hyperbole. You don't have to make false or misleading statements. And you don't have to trumpet speculative theories. But hey, if you like that type of thing...

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:33:34 UTC | #573407

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 22 by Steve Zara

Somehow, this has the wrong flavour for me. I don't think it hits the right tone regarding science. The first half seemed to me to almost pour scorn on the supposedly limited scientists who only saw reality as the solar system, and then who only saw reality as our one galaxy.

That's not something to be thought of in any negative way, it's the way science is supposed to work, it's a sign of good science to work with what you can observe as much as you can. So, I think that could have been pitched better.

Then we come on to the matter of multiverses. The more we try and think about how multiverses may or may not help us understand our place in reality, the more confusing things become. This is especially the case with universes that can never be linked to us in space or time. It may be fascinating to contemplate them, but in terms of understanding why we are here, they are of no consequence. That seems odd at first, as we can try and picture an infinite sample of universes, of which ours is just one. But that is a false picture, as what can 'sample' possibly mean if tries to reach beyond our space and time? Even when we are dealing with "universes" that we might, given time, be able to see because they are beyond our visible horizon, we may be stuck with the problem of infinity: talking about sampling from infinity is hard.

Because of these problems with dealing with what reality means in terms of multiverses, I think it's misleading to suggest that they are of any help in understanding why we see things as we do, and why we are here to see things at all. I think we have to find what answers we can within this universe, and if we can't find answers it may be that the questions don't make much sense.

I think realising that there may be limits on what we can know is a better strategy than wandering off into science fiction, even with the best intentions.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:22:40 UTC | #573444

Eldorado's Avatar Comment 23 by Eldorado

No i disagree b-612 is think it is beautiful video and motivating and makes you WONDER... its even poetic and inspiring . I watched more of his videos they all have same style. I think main purpose of it is to see how science is so much more "cooler" and bigger than religions and how much more puzzles it has to offer to unravel.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:44:47 UTC | #573460

Eldorado's Avatar Comment 24 by Eldorado

Just want to add Steve Zara : Multiverses should help you understand your "place in reality" because more you know (about anything) more informant and fairer decisions you make.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:01:41 UTC | #573469

aliensmack's Avatar Comment 25 by aliensmack

Comment 2 by bethe123 :

What an idiot.

Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty. The only thing remarkable is that video somehow managed to get posted on RD.net

Reading Comprehension is not enough in this digital media age , we need courses in public schools teaching "Video Watching Comprehension" .

The guy in the video repeatedly says "we don't know" and "we don't pretend to know"

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:05:27 UTC | #573471

Stevezar's Avatar Comment 26 by Stevezar

Comment 21 by bethe123 :

Stevezar et al:

I have to wonder what video you watched, since it obviously wasn't the one posted on this thread -- Stevezar

We watched exactly the same video. What you take away from it depends on what you bring to it.

No we did NOT watch the same video, as other people have pointed out.

You said :

" Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty. "

So I was hoping you could point to which you tube video you watched, instead of this one, where this was done.

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:14:24 UTC | #573477

Net's Avatar Comment 27 by Net

Comment 2 by bethe123 What an idiot.

Making a youtube video which implicitly accords the most speculative and unproven of scientific theories the same certainty as proven science is a travesty. The only thing remarkable is that video somehow managed to get posted on RD.net

bethe, i have to agree with stevezar: what video were YOU watching?? i always find it remarkable that no matter what you put in front of people, they will see only what they want to see. i rather imagine that this "bethe" has probably trashed other contributions at various other sites, too. the fact that his/her comment is abusive rather than constructive is a put off. phillhelenes has done a great job in portraying his thoughts in a very beautiful if not poetic way. i find myself wishing i'd been exposed to the possibilities put forward in the video at a much earlier age!

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:22:48 UTC | #573500

rrh1306's Avatar Comment 28 by rrh1306

Thought it was pretty good. Can't let are good scientific messages that we have now be prisoners of perfect one's we might have some day.

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:22:35 UTC | #573520

Turboladdade's Avatar Comment 29 by Turboladdade

Is "philhellenes" his name, as in Phil Hellenes? Or is it the word philhellenes?

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:48:31 UTC | #573525

The Berzerker's Avatar Comment 30 by The Berzerker

I recommend subbing Phil, in my opinion all his vids are good.

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 03:26:29 UTC | #573549