If you missed it and want to see it, here’s the YouTube version of my Skype interview last Sunday with Rob Penczak and Larry Mendoza, hosts of Fairfax County’s cable-access t.v. program “Road to Reason.” After some announcements and news, the interview begins at 12:30.
I can’t bear to watch these things (Rob gave me the time marker above), but I can tell you that they wanted to talk mostly about science rather than religion or science vs. religion, which was fine with me. There was one person who called in, and that was plenty weird (see for yourself).
sub
😀
I thought that was hilarious.
I think she was trying to compliment you in a unorthodox way.
*an
I liked how she seemed to think she had the power not to be hung up on. I’m so cheeky that if I were the host, as soon as she said that, I would’ve said, “so explain why the next sound you are going to hear is ‘click, baaaaahhh’.” 😀
I also found it amusing that she was perplexed that Jerry corrected her understandings about Einstein because she’s an atheist. Yeah, we atheists agree with each other all the time. That’s why we’re always just telling each other how much we agree on this site. 😀
Not to sound condescending, but I thought it was kind of endearing.
A bit naive and a bit perplexed. 🙂
I would’ve cut her off right after she said she had “three things”, with a curt “you can go with ONE of those three, ma’am, so choose the one QUESTION you would most like answered.” And at the first sign of trouble: “click” — followed by a quick Alex Trebek impersonation to inject a little humor:
“call-ins, this is just like Jeopardy; please phrase your response in the form of a question”.
I can smell manipulation from a mile away, at this point.
But I do agree with Randy below — the call-in format really should be avoided. Type-in is much better, with crew off-camera to wade through what comes in. It keeps people on point.
Thought it was pretty good but have two ideas for the guys doing the show. Do not have live call ins as you never know what you will get. When you have experts on your show, please let them do the talking and stay with asking questions.
Excellent points. In addition to confusing/distracting content, callers also come with poor/unreliable audio quality that further detracts from the interview.
Good interview conversations are rare, as it is tempting for interviewers to want to show off rather than facilitate. Terry Gross gets my vote for one of the best interviewers of all time. Here’s hoping Jerry will be invited on her show 🙂
I watched this live and enjoyed it. I even learnt some sciencey stuff, which was very interesting. I think the caller’s problem was mainly that she didn’t express herself that well and it came across a bit weird. I think she was just trying to make Jerry say Einstein didn’t believe in God without putting the words in his mouth. It is, of course, a favourite theist misrepresentation that Einstein believed in God.
Anyway, it was worth watching. In NZ, three times while Jerry was talking I missed a few seconds while I was subjected to leg-waxing ads, so maybe I’ll watch again to see the full version (of Jerry talking, not the legs). 🙂
I agree. The caller was unclear which led to her seeming to be saying things opposite to what she was trying to say.
You did great in the interview, Jerry. For purely selfish reasons, I really do wish you were one of those in the forefront.
You might not have The Pinker’s hair, but there’s no reason you shouldn’t have his lecture / guest appearance schedule.
Is it too late to see if your publisher can start getting you on the circuit for the Spring as part of the book launch?
b&
I wonder if Pinker has his own hair dresser. I agree, both Coyne & Pinker are terrific!! 🙂
Good interview.
1. It is my information that Einstein actually denied being an atheist. I think Deist or Pantheist is a more accurate description of his philosophy.
2. With regard to humans and chimps producing hybrids, Stephen Jay Gould speculated that it was not impossible in one of his books. However, because of the difference in the number of chromosomes and other factors, it is highly unlikely that the result would be fertile and probably not viable. However, the experiments you cited took place in the former Soviet Union some 80 years ago (and possibly also in Nazi Germany) when the technology of artificial insemination was quite primitive (e.g. IVF did not exist) so I don’t think one can exclude the possibility solely on the basis of the failure of those experiments.
An interesting 40 minutes or so, Professor CC, just a pity about the slightly odd caller!
A lot of ground covered and definitions defined so, yeah, enjoyed it.
There was a story several years ago of a drunken party of anthropologists who fertilized a female chimp with human sperm. She showed signs of being pregnant. In the sober light of day, they gave her hormones and terminated the pregnancy, if any. The story was told by a paleontologist who was there. He told it to a colleague, who told it to me.
We probably don’t want to know exactly how they fertilized her..
I’ve heard from several sources (including ones more credible than “a mad Cloggy toolpusher”) that captured orangutang females sometimes end up in Indonesian brothels. Nothing against Indonesians there – that’s just a question of supply.
Prof C C did a great job even when faced with a confused caller. The show needed a call screener.
C C = Ceiling Cat
At one point in your discussion you say that calculations show that it takes about a million years for one species to split into two. This, I have never heard mentioned by a debater providing evidence against creationists. Creationist always claim that you never see splitting occur as if it should be observable within a human lifetime. This calculation should be brought into the vocabulary of those involved in these debates.
I like the program. The two interviewers didn’t look very skillful, considering it’s a real time, I would say, good enough. And they tried to bring topics into depth and details, which is good, although sometimes it seems they did not expect the answer is beyond a simple answer…. I wonder if the interviewers and audiences can catch all of what Professor Jerry Coyne ( does it sound exact as coin? :)) said. What Jerry said fed me well — that’s exact the reason that I like to listen to people with broad & profound knowledge talk!! 🙂
Something trivial but I would like to mention:
1. Jerry looked very fresh, guess he just shaved. But I remember he said he sprayed perfume on himself, do you think the smell would be transmitted with the image? … 🙂
2. One of the interviewer is very proud of his son, who can play Rubik cube quickly, 3×3, 1 minute, I think that is pretty good. I think it takes more than just “follow the steps” to be able to finish the job very quickly. When I was a kid, we got the toy, we never heard of solution steps, we just tried to solve the problem, we finished top two layers, but sucked on the final layer. An electrician happened to stop at our home, he said :”easy! Let me show you!”, then he cracked the cube, and put back the small pieces back, piece by piece, in order. ( sigh, I would never forget the scene, :)) Anyway, he was not welcomed.
Rubio’s Cubes were novel when I was at uni. A favourite trick was to pop one apart when the owner was out of their room and rebuild it so it couldn’t be solved…
/@ / San Diego
Sadly when I tried it it took awhile to start up then went for 4 minutes then stopped. Said to “try again later.” Which may mean never for me.
Re Randall R. Besch @ #12
If you are using Firefox, there are several add-ons that can download on-line videos such as this one. E.G. Flashgot, Download Helper, and Flash and Video Download. I don’t know what’s available for Chrome and/or Explorer.