If you’ve been following the Bloggingheads site, you probably already know that the best thing on it is Science Saturday with John Horgan and George Johnson. Horgan and Johnson are splitting up for the next few weeks, and are getting different heads to make a pair. Next week, George Johnson and the physicist Sean Carroll will be teaming up for a physics-heavy session, and the week after that, it’s John Horgan and me, of all people. I’m going to dig up my kids’ old boy scout manuals and review the sections on knots just in case he asks me about string theory.
Sean brings up a few things I’m mildly concerned about. I know from personal experience that being a blogger doesn’t necessarily translate well into more visual media; I’m not sure what to do about that, other than just being awake and avoiding faux pas like showing up at the camera naked. We also need juicy stuff to talk about. Like Sean, I’ll accept suggestions for what you want to hear in the comments—or you could be really wicked and write directly to Horgan with ideas for exciting topics to ambush me with (you could also advise Johnson on how to get a rise out of Carroll).
If you really want to have fun with it, mix up the questions. Carroll might be just as flummoxed getting asked about developmental networks in invertebrate genomes as I would be having to chatter about dark matter.
I thought Sean Carroll was an evo-devo biologist.
Michael:
There are two Sean Carrolls. Sean B. Carroll is the evo-devo biologist, and Sean M. Carroll is a physicist at Caltech.
Confusing, isn’t it? There’s a physicist Sean Carroll and a biologist Sean Carroll. Since the biologist has a beard, I think that means he’s the evil twin.
Not suggestions for topics off the top of my head, but here are some tips for appearing on camera:
1) Wear comfortable (not new) clothing
2) Avoid wearing large or complex patterns. Also avoid wearing black, white or red; green or blue can also be disastrous if there is a “chroma key” in use (this is the bluescreen used to replace plain background with graphics)
2) Wear makeup! It really is essential for natural appearance on-camera
3) If there is more than one camera, be aware of which camera is on; strive to make eye contact with that camera
4) Keep hand gestures subtle; avoid sudden moves
5) If you drink, don’t be afraid to have a wee nip before the show; for many people this can help alleviate nerves
If you show up on camera naked, it would make for a very interesting and unusual Science Saturday. THAT said…
Cephalopods! We all want to see more octopi. Actually, what does Science know about the evolutionary development of the cephalopods? Other orders of mollusks, I hear about– yeah, yeah, limestone blah blah, shells blah blah– but what do we know about OCTOPI? Were there primitive, stone-tool-using ones?…
My thing is, let’s eliminate the middleman. Isn’t it antithetical to the blogging ideal to have our conversations mediated by journalists? (As much as I love journalists.)
PZ, we should do our own bloggingheads. We can debate “God: irritating fiction or malevolent force of evil?” And then for dessert, we can argue whose discipline is more disrespected by SF films.
Since the topic has come up a few times in these parts, I’d like to hear more about neuroscience — both how it impacts creationism and, more generally, about the evolution of nervous systems. Quoting PZ from a while back:
Details, both about the science and about cultural extrapolations, would be interesting to hear.
I wonder if they grew up in the same area.
“No, mom, it was the OTHER Sean Carroll who kicked the priest in the nuts.”
Hey, I’m all for that, Sean. But since neither of us believe in gods, aren’t we going to just agree that he’s an irritating fiction? We could try to outdo each other in our scorn, I suppose.
We’re also going to have to say that both biology and physics are pretty badly mucked up in SF.
I haven’t watched the science bloggingheads yet, good to know they are there. A couple of technical format requests though, and these are intended to make the thing more watchable –
Please put the camera in a comfortable location at your eye-level, and then look at it when speaking.
Please check your equipment beforehand and if you use an earpiece make sure it will stay put.
Please add lighting to your face if needed to avoid that grayed-out grainy look. A single worklight would help a lot, but not too close. Conversely, don’t have any hotspots behind you.
Oh yeah, a complete emotional meltdown would be good for ratings. Or at least be as snarky as Achenbach.
“Beards: Threat, or Menace?”
That was one of the worst online conversations I have ever heard. No structure, no content really.
I knew about most of the things they were talking about, but how many other people would?
In other words, it sucked big time.
A friend claims to have seen a clip of an octopus whose favorite little niche had been taken over by another, larger octopus, which it was trying, unsuccessfully, to evict. Someone on the diver’s boat accidentally dropped a mop overboard, which the smaller used like a sword to drive the interloper away. According to her description, as the ‘pod saw the mop drift down, its skin registered a “WTF?” followed by an “a-HA!” as it grabbed the implement and charged back to the fray.
I haven’t been able to find it on YouTube, alas.
How about discussing the evolution of the flagellum? About how it probably started out as a ion transport channel and evolved etc etc.
Well, there are at least two of them. I wouldn’t preclude the possibility that there somewhere, somewhen, is/was a third.
I know, I know, it seems farfetched in the light of their awesomeness. But there is no logical preclusion.
Sean M will hold that they are fermionic and that we can observe individuality in them; Sean B will hold that they have common descent and that we can observe similarity in them. Let them fight it out, I say.
…
…
…
Btw, the beard theme is great:
“A string of beards: what happens when beards experience entanglement?”
“Bearding the theory: are beards adaptive or neutral in evolution?”
“Strung up by a beard: are beards on pictured gods the best proof of them being nonsense?”
Well, there are at least two of them. I wouldn’t preclude the possibility that there somewhere, somewhen, is/was a third.
I know, I know, it seems farfetched in the light of their awesomeness. But there is no logical preclusion.
Sean M will hold that they are fermionic and that we can observe individuality in them; Sean B will hold that they have common descent and that we can observe similarity in them. Let them fight it out, I say.
…
…
…
Btw, the beard theme is great:
“A string of beards: what happens when beards experience entanglement?”
“Bearding the theory: are beards adaptive or neutral in evolution?”
“Strung up by a beard: are beards on pictured gods the best proof of them being nonsense?”
Oops. Everyone knows that happens then, or at least Occam’s razor will be helpful.
I guess a better question/theme is:
“A string of beards: can beards experience entanglement?”
Oops. Everyone knows that happens then, or at least Occam’s razor will be helpful.
I guess a better question/theme is:
“A string of beards: can beards experience entanglement?”
These guys are pretty sexy:
http://www.tolweb.org/Vampyroteuthis_infernalis
“I would be having to chatter about dark matter”
Perhaps you could bluff your way through by talking about the substantia nigra.
Are you allowed to say ‘nigra’ on TV now?
Isn’t it ‘substantia africanamericana’?
USE PROPS! And definitely appear on camera naked.