The Great Debate: THE STORYTELLING OF SCIENCE (OFFICIAL)

25

The Origins Project at ASU presents the final night in the Origins Stories weekend, focusing on the science of storytelling and the storytelling of science. The Storytelling of Science features a panel of esteemed scientists, public intellectuals, and award-winning writers including well-known science educator Bill Nye, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, theoretical physicist Brian Greene, Science Friday's Ira Flatow, popular science fiction writer Neal Stephenson, executive director of the World Science Festival Tracy Day, and Origins Project director Lawrence Krauss as they discuss the stories behind cutting edge science from the origin of the universe to a discussion of exciting technologies that will change our future. They demonstrate how to convey the excitement of science and the importance helping promote a public understanding of science.



Video by Black Chalk Productions


See comments on a previous post of this video here

 


continue to source article at youtube.com

25 COMMENTS

  1. The storytelling of science is awesome stuff!

    I am very interested in the science of storytelling. I recently read an article that details the usefulness of storytelling. In a nutshell, seeing/hearing a bulleted list causes some areas of your brain to fire (typically Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas). However, hearing a story with the same bulleted items woven into the fabric of the story causes the association areas between the two to get all full of electrical activity. Then, telling the story yourself, causes a full out electrical storm in your brain.

    The implications for pedagogical strategies and lesson design are right there for the taking. If anyone has any good resources on this topic, I’d love to see them.

  2. Neil deGrasse Tyson has no expertise about art, and is entirely wrong about Impressionism. The Impressionists were trying to arrive at MORE accurate pictures, using SCIENTIFIC ideas about optics.

    Do your research, Neil, before you spout ignorant opinions!

    • His history is a bit shaky as well,”first war to be recorded by photography was the American civil war”, what about Roger Fenton in the Crimea six years earlier.

      In reply to #7 by McCourt:

      Neil deGrasse Tyson has no expertise about art, and is entirely wrong about Impressionism. The Impressionists were trying to arrive at MORE accurate pictures, using SCIENTIFIC ideas about optics.

      Do your research, Neil, before you spout ignorant opinions!

  3. Excellent ! As good as any show in the theatre. Moving, informative, funny, hopeful, fascinating and maybe just a wee hint of sentimentality. And what an audience !

    A big thank you to all involved from Mr DArcy !

  4. Prof Dawkins,
    Your story was fascinating…. forgive my amateur knowledge… but..cuckoos seem to remember where they were born and seem to pass on that to through to their offspring… isn’t that Lamarkian? how does that information (where they were born initially) get transmitted into the germline DNA?
    Again, sorry if I missed connecting the dots….

    • In reply to #9 by karihouse24:

      Prof Dawkins,
      Your story was fascinating…. forgive my amateur knowledge… but..cuckoos seem to remember where they were born and seem to pass on that to through to their offspring… isn’t that Lamarkian? how does that information (where they were born initially) get transmitted into the germline DNA?
      Again, sorry if I missed connecting the dots….

      No this is not Lamarkian because the information about the nest is not passed down in the DNA. What is in the DNA are the “instructions” to memorise the nest that you are born in and lay your own eggs in it; so that is what the cuckoos do.

      Sorry if this is incorrect – I am no expert either but I think it is how it happens.

      • In reply to #24 by Pied Wagtail:

        In reply to #9 by karihouse24:

        If we are referring to egg laying behaviour then it could simply be imprinting of the host species on female young. If we are referring to egg colouration then it is based on the survival of eggs not abandoned or ejected from parasitised nests.

  5. I’ve thought long and hard about adding my opinion on this production. I’m afraid there was a bit too much “razzmatazz ” for my liking. I don’t think science needs to be presented in a deadly earnest way all the time, but I kept thinking “show biz ” while I was watching. I thought it cheapened the product, though I’m obviously at odds with the enthusiastic audience.

    • In reply to #11 by Nitya:

      I’ve thought long and hard about adding my opinion on this production. I’m afraid there was a bit too much “razzmatazz ” for my liking. I don’t think science needs to be presented in a deadly earnest way all the time, but I kept thinking “show biz ” while I was watching. I thought it cheapened the product, though I’m obviously at odds with the enthusiastic audience.

      You’re not at odds with Richard Dawkins, because during this show he said dumbing-down is a barrier against the effort which yields scientific reward (so I guess that is a kind of disclaimer considering the very comment you are making) and what Richard says there also reminds me of what Feynman said about ‘cargo-cult science’ . But I think this presentation was more about how science can also appeal to the human-side of scientists because not only can the general public relate to that but also because it happens to be true too? Like when Bronowski said ‘Science is a very human form of knowledge’. Actually I am wondering now what the speed of dark is.

    • Science should attempt to attract the widest possible audience. It’s fine if this style is not to your liking; you are not being compelled to consume it, nor does it’s production limit the availability of more serious material. I think, as you seem to concede, events like this will turn on a whole different constituency, most importantly children, to the wonders of science.

      In reply to #11 by Nitya:

      I’ve thought long and hard about adding my opinion on this production. I’m afraid there was a bit too much “razzmatazz ” for my liking. I don’t think science needs to be presented in a deadly earnest way all the time, but I kept thinking “show biz ” while I was watching. I thought it cheapened the product, though I’m obviously at odds with the enthusiastic audience.

      • In reply to #26 by celtlen:

        Science should attempt to attract the widest possible audience. It’s fine if this style is not to your liking; you are not being compelled to consume it, nor does it’s production limit the availability of more serious material. I think, as you seem to concede, events like this will turn on a whole different constituency, most importantly children, to the wonders of science.

        It was certainly not my intention to offend the sensibilities of those who enjoyed the production. As you can see, mine is definitely a minority opinion, in fact to my knowledge, I’m the only contributor who did not like it!

        I’m not immune to the charms of scientific presentations. I share the wonder of David Attenborough and Prof Brian Cox with their excellent programs. I love the style of Brian Greene with his recent “Fabric of the Cosmos” series. I’ve seen Lawrence Krauss debate and marvel at his ability to convey highly complex concepts in a manner accessible to ordinary people.

        It must have been truly wonderful for the scientifically literate audience to have been in the company of such “stars” who share their enthusiasm. I definitely put myself on their side. That’s exactly why I thought ‘long and hard’ before voicing my opinion. However, I did not like it I’m afraid, and I think that someone had to be the lone voice representing the negative point of view, if only for the sake of balance.

        In reply to #11 by Nitya:

        I’ve thought long and hard about adding my opinion on this production. I’m afraid there was a bit too much “razzmatazz ” for my liking. I don’t think science needs to be presented in a deadly earnest way all the time, but I kept thinking “show biz ” while I was watching. I thought it cheapened the product, though I’m obviously at odds with the enthusiastic audience.

  6. OK, finally got some time to watch this. Just finished the first part and I’m definitely feeling the buzz.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson’s remark that more of us need to feel science really resonated with me. Loved Richard’s story about the cuckoos, they are one of my favourite groups of birds and have very distinctive calls. Bill Nye was great! :D His quip about Y-chromosomes was funny and demonstrates that, unlike most engineers, he also understands biology.

    Huge fan of Jane Goodall, but think I’ll remain skeptical of Bigfoot for now.

    Now I’m going to watch the second part.

  7. The Traveling Wilburys of Science? The Galaxy Song to start the event hooked me right in with a giant smile. I thoroughly enjoyed it and Part II is great. I didn’t know about planet George (Uranus), lol!

    As an aside, Bill Nye was the only one to ask for a donation (Planetary Society). Done! They are including t-shirts with membership.

    Well done everyone, thank you Prof. Krauss for assembling this all-star cast.

    Mike

  8. That was positively phenomenal. Bill Nye and Neil Tyson never fail at splitting my sides. Richard Dawkins’ bit on the cuckoos was truly fascinating. Neal’s bit about the uranium was just cool to me. Lawrence Krauss has one us a great service, the panelists were in good form and brought very much food for thought. Say what you will about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s political or historical incorrectness, that story had a wonderful message. Watching Bill Nye never ceases to inspire me. Bravo. It would be lovely indeed if Lawrence’s talks of an all women panel came to fruition. I can’t wait to see a panel like this again!

  9. Regarding the discussion about consciousness, I think there is a lot of unnecessary confusion on this topic. Consciousness doesn’t exist objectively, it only exists subjectively. Consciousness doesn’t actually do anything, but it still feels real for the subject experiencing it. That is, after all, why we value consciousness.

  10. Whatever the time, location, purpose, production method or marketing style, I enjoy seeing these diverse folk getting it on with Science.

    At least it’s not one of those topic-chopping ‘debates’ with non-scientists, which are often just a fun-free pain to get through…. Mac.

Leave a Reply