1. Comment #295642 by Matt H. on December 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Thank you for this. Would it be cheeky of me to ask for the Derren Brown interview to be put up, off the new 'Enemies of Reason' DVD? I wouldn't ask, but you did the same for a few of the 'Root of all evil?' interviews. I do plan to actually buy these, after Christmas when I have the cash.

Anyway, that aside, hopefully more episodes will be made now Richard has retired. These really are fascinating. Good work.

Other Comments by Matt H.

2. Comment #295643 by Jenny Taylier on December 2, 2008 at 4:07 pm

It was interesting to see them both chuckling at the poor statistical confidence of Niko's early papers but not questioning how those papers got past the review process. How can scientists point to the importance of peer review in building a solid body of evidence when it clearly was not happening then?

Other Comments by Jenny Taylier

3. Comment #295645 by Brian English on December 2, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Jenny peer review is only part of the process. Reviewers are sometimes overtaxed or not appropriate to be reviewing a work.

Other Comments by Brian English

4. Comment #295647 by admin on December 2, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Sounds good, Matt. I'll post the Derren Brown interview soon. - Josh

Other Comments by admin

5. Comment #295648 by beeline on December 2, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Perhaps the more successfully received of Tinbergen's papers were the ones in which statistics didn't play so large a part. I should imagine all his papers are still available to read, so you could do a comparison.

Of course, if mistakes had been made, they are visible for all to see today (an even better reason for everyone to check them out: I'm sure all undergraduates do so every year). Therefore, even if they are flawed (which all theories are, to some degree) these flaws will be made public by whoever spots them, and the theories rejected or updated to more accurate versions.

Science progresses, even when mistakes are made.

Other Comments by beeline

6. Comment #295649 by Matt H. on December 2, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Thanks Josh! Derren Brown has a large internet following, if this gets around we could get more people here (which can only be a good thing!)

Lucas, to make a good supervillain, Richard would have to have an evil grin on his face, wouldn't he?

Other Comments by Matt H.

7. Comment #295650 by Clairebear on December 2, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Wow! This Manning guy's really got a great way of looking at things. I like him.

Being a cat lover, I couldn't help but smile when RD picks up the cat, I do hope he's a cat lover too, I feel part of a kind of sister/brotherhood with other cat lovers.

Other Comments by Clairebear

8. Comment #295651 by Laurie Fraser on December 2, 2008 at 4:28 pm

This was excellent. Thanks for posting, Josh.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #295656 by beeline on December 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Aubrey Manning has made a very watchable DVD called 'Earth Story' about geology and the beginnings of life. Real passion, and no expense spared. Very much recommended.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Story/dp/B000FS9SGE

Other Comments by beeline

10. Comment #295665 by Uhtred on December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I agree, beeline, Manning's 'Earth Story' is a brilliant doco and one of my all time favorites.
It was good to see him and Richard together.

Other Comments by Uhtred

11. Comment #295668 by HourglassMemory on December 2, 2008 at 5:22 pm

I love listening to these conversations, these discussions.
It's like going to a gymnasium for the mind.

I hope Dawkins just keeps interviewing more and more people.

And I hope not just Dawkins tapes these long discussions. But other scientists and thinkers.
I wish there was some sort of enormous collection where Dawkins would primarily talk about biology and the theory of evolution, but then you'd have people like Neil deGreasse Tyson interviewing(just having a chat with, really...) Astrophysicists, or theoretical physicists like Kaku and Green and Krauss.
Having these collections of long talks (nothing wrong with that) seperated by fields of study and inquiry, from biology to psychology to history to physics to astronomy to philosophy to mathematics and so on.
I wish something like this could be made in the future.

Almost like the "In Our Time", a wonderful radio show, but in video format, where you actually see the people sitting in a living room or a pub or a park or something and they discuss various issues for, oh, an hour or two.

A collection like that would be of tremendous value.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

12. Comment #295680 by robotaholic on December 2, 2008 at 7:20 pm

"ah we are joined by an animal" lol that was funny -

Other Comments by robotaholic

13. Comment #295687 by j.mills on December 2, 2008 at 8:08 pm

HourglassMemory said:

And I hope not just Dawkins tapes these long discussions. But other scientists and thinkers.

In case you're unaware of it, there's lots of interesting video discussions over at the Science Network, http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs.

Other Comments by j.mills

14. Comment #295688 by headcold on December 2, 2008 at 8:10 pm

I agree with the earlier poster that the cover shows Dawkins' no-nonsense side. Perhaps that was the goal, but I prefer the friendlier Dawkins.

I also feel that this whole point is arguably not worth bringing up.

Other Comments by headcold

15. Comment #295703 by Eli on December 2, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Oh this was certainly wonderful. I need to get this DVD.

Finishing my undergraduate biology course this year has been tough. I have been, throughout these twelve months, trying to repress a spooky lurking feeling of loss and confusion.

I had to decide what would my graduate course be. Now, I have finally decided to follow the path of Genetics in Neuroscience. Not with much certainty, for a plan awaits numerous little paces before it turns into a real decision.

I'm telling my story here because I need to share the enormous difference that having orientation from elder scholars is. They truly help, when not in physical presence, with their writings and advices carefully kept in non-biological memetic vehicles.

I've never heard of Aubrey Manning. But here I am, just thrilled, empathetic and emotional after watching his wise attempts to envisage an optimistic future for his kin.

And with Richard Dawkins, sharing memories about the Academia, both thinking deeply about what we know, what we don't know, what we are confused about... these scenes touch me gracefully and deeply.

They may not be very optimistic about the future, but oddly enough make me optimistic about entering now, humbly, into the Academia, childishly awed with its enormous spaces and variety of panoramas.

In these occasions I always remember that compliment Carl Sagan made to Ann Druyan: in the vastness of space and the immensity of time,
it is my joy to share a planet and an epoch with these people.

Other Comments by Eli

16. Comment #295721 by howardb on December 2, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I agree very much with Aubreys attitude towards religion. How he feels it helps people deal with the knowledge of there own mortality and gives people a feeling of complacency and strength.

This is why a disagree very much with Dawkins theory that religion is a misfire of something else, namely a child's need to believe stories a parent tells it.

I believe religion did evolve from story telling and a child's need to believe, but it was a naturally selected adaption and not a misfire as Dawkins claims.

I can see a time when our first ancestors were able conceive of their own mortality and how story telling of surviving after your death perhaps a heaven, reincarnation or whatever they told themselves to ease the burden of knowing of their mortality. This was why religion evolved in my opinion. Those minds that were able to dilute themselves into believing the stories were better at surviving than those who couldn't believe. It was a waste to dwell on your mortality since there is no action to be taken to prevent it from happening. Natural selection as Dawkins says eliminates waste. So I believe minds that believe in religions and some kind of after life was natural selection answer.

If religion was a misfire of something else then why doesnt the misfire happen with Santa Claus? Most of us grow out of that one and accept it as myth.

Other Comments by howardb

17. Comment #295726 by Mbee on December 2, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Thank you for posting this very interesting and thought provoking video. Better than anything on television - this should be ON television, but I fear most people are not up to this level of discussion and understanding - they want the quick and easy solution.
I have learned more on this site in a year than any other medium. Well done RD.net - what inspirational material. Keep up the good work.
I look forward to reading the rest of RD's books they are on my christmas wish list.

Other Comments by Mbee

18. Comment #295727 by Steve Zara on December 2, 2008 at 9:59 pm

What a great discussion. I have been a fan of Aubrey Manning because of his wonderful series "Earth Story".

I particularly enjoyed the section about science writing, and the formality of scientific papers - it brought back awful memories! I think there is an answer to Richard's point about why scientists tend to write more formally when writing papers as against communicating with the public - most of us scientists aren't trained writers, and writing can be hard. Having certain standards to meet and being given a recipe for how to write a paper can, perhaps, be necessary.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #295729 by Lucas on December 2, 2008 at 10:07 pm

This is the poem by Phillip Larkin that Manning mentions in part 4. I like it quite a bit, and I think its central message sort of explains exactly why no amount of evidence will change the minds of those who cannot except death and the mechanistic universe. So much frustration is expounded around here at why people can't except the rational, logical explanation of reality, but in some sense it really just comes down to Manning's point and that of this poem.


Aubade
by Philip Larkin

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.
The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anasthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.

This is from http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/aubade/.

Credit to Mark Mcconville who posted this comment on that site, as he nails it when he says, in comparing the poem to Becker's famous book, The Denial of Death, "...a powerful case for death angst as the central motivator and organizer of human personality and what are called 'character defenses.' Character defenses are systematic and parametric distortions of experience, that allow us to maintain our integrity and self esteem as individuals. Larkin's poem stares straight into the face of precisely what Becker said the human psyche cannot, ordinarily, tolerate."

Systematic and parametric distortions of experience. That is what is going on folks. That is what belief in the supernatural is. Without having read Becker's book, I can't endorse it completely, but from what wiki says, it seems right on.

And yeah, this was a great interview. I almost teared up when thinking about the animals and the impending death of the beautiful natural world. But I'm a cynic and know full well that urban techno sprawl is in our future. We're just not smart enough as a group to avoid it, despite those of us who know better.

Other Comments by Lucas

20. Comment #295746 by Roy_H on December 2, 2008 at 11:19 pm

I really enjoyed that, a wonderful intelligent meaningful discussion, far better than to listen to the "Alister McGrath" types who seem to talk a heck of a lot and ultimately say nothing. I watched the "Earth Story" series of programmes with relish and was highly delighted when at long last they became available to buy on DVD.

Edit: and the beautiful score written for the series by Deborah Mollison is also available on CD ( Chandos Chan9688 )

Other Comments by Roy_H

21. Comment #295772 by Lord of the Morning on December 3, 2008 at 12:07 am

Fantastic conversation

Other Comments by Lord of the Morning

22. Comment #295782 by AdrianB on December 3, 2008 at 12:23 am

I just want to add to the favourable comments about Aubrey Manning's 'Earth Story'.

It's not just one of my favourite documentaries, it is actually my favourite piece of television ... ever.

What we currently know about geology is explained with such enthusiasm, simplicity and beauty that I actually find it transcendent.

He also has a wonderful voice, which is a pleasure to hear on the Radio. You can listen to his series "Unearthing Mysteries" from a couple of years ago here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/unearthingmysteries.shtml

:)

Other Comments by AdrianB

23. Comment #295806 by Rawhard Dickins on December 3, 2008 at 1:07 am

Great to see Aubrey Manning here!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

24. Comment #295838 by NightSod on December 3, 2008 at 1:48 am

I'm as delighted to see this video as the rest of you.

"Earth Story" was indeed the breakthrough series on the subject of geology, with really sober but beautiful special fx, well worth the time of anyone who loves this site.

Other Comments by NightSod

25. Comment #295848 by AdrianB on December 3, 2008 at 2:31 am

Apologies to Mr Dawkins since this thread is turning into the Aubrey Manning fan club.

Josh - when are we going to see AubreyManning.net established?

:)

Other Comments by AdrianB

26. Comment #295851 by beeline on December 3, 2008 at 2:35 am

Comment #16 by howardb

If religion was a misfire of something else then why doesnt the misfire happen with Santa Claus? Most of us grow out of that one and accept it as myth.

This is a good question, but I think the answer is something that Daniel Dennett has talked a lot about a lot in 'Breaking the Spell' - the answer being that certain organisations have used 'belief in the supernatural' as a vehicle for their authoritarian attempts to gain political power.

As religion is extremely old and very widespread, and has a long association with culture and morals, these organisations - what we would now know as 'organised religion' - have 'stewarded' the religion to serve their own agenda.

This hasn't happened with Santa Claus because belief in him is not powerful enough amongst a wide enough variety of races or cultures, and he's only thought about for a few weeks a year (or months if you're in retail).

Father Christmas just doesn't present enough of a 'hook' in people for organisations to be able to leverage it for political ends. But you will have noticed that other organisations (the retail kind mentioned above) have very much used his image as a vehicle for financial power: to get you to shop shop shop!

Other Comments by beeline

27. Comment #295872 by gcdavis on December 3, 2008 at 3:09 am

Call me sentimental but I had tears in my eyes after that conversation. Aubrey exudes such compassion and warmth. Just imagine how wonderful this planet could be if there were more like him, but as it isn’t we are lucky to have the Prof to stand up to the forces of darkness on our behalf.

Other Comments by gcdavis

28. Comment #295878 by AdrianB on December 3, 2008 at 3:16 am

You're sentimental gcdavies!

Other Comments by AdrianB

29. Comment #295899 by gcdavis on December 3, 2008 at 3:34 am

Yep AdrianB

I think Aubrey is 78, an age when thoughts about the future tend to be about your children and grandchildren’s future rather than your own. He said he was personally an optimist, most of us are, but could he be optimistic about the future of our planet? No.

Whenever I get depressed about the future, I am reminded of an Auden poem that I studied for O-Level many years ago and in particular a couple of lines:

Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages



SEPTEMBER 1, 1939

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

Other Comments by gcdavis

30. Comment #295917 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 3:58 am

I could spend days on that settee chatting with this Aubrey chap. What a wonderful, interesting fellow, and what a comforting setting!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

31. Comment #296010 by howardb on December 3, 2008 at 5:34 am

comment #26 by beeline

This is a good question, but I think the answer is something that Daniel Dennett has talked a lot about a lot in 'Breaking the Spell' - the answer being that certain organisations have used 'belief in the supernatural' as a vehicle for their authoritarian attempts to gain political power

Father Christmas just doesn't present enough of a 'hook' in people for organisations to be able to leverage it for political ends.

Organizations do not force people to believe in gods. Religions begin with the individual which allow organizations to form in the first place.

Religions 'Hook' for the individual is the belief of life after death in whatever form your religion may promise it. A very strong 'Hook'. Emotions kick in and rationalize any doubts that may arise.

True about Santa who's only 'Hook' is gift giving. Which is why people easily accept it as myth as they start finding problems with the story. Finding out your not getting gifts from Santa anymore,emotions don't kick in.
Not existing after death is a big deal however to many people and emotions kick in.

Those emotions that kick and make us believe in religion no matter what evidence comes forward, I believe is a human predisposition that has been breed into us by natural selection for 100,000's of years since we became aware of our own mortality.

Other Comments by howardb

32. Comment #296020 by howardb on December 3, 2008 at 5:45 am

I also like what Aubrey Manning said about our genes.
That our genes predispose us to many behaviors instead of locking or forcing us into those behaviors. Though some predispositions are just extremely strong.

We are predisposed to believe in religion, not forced to believe. We do break away if the evidence against it is strong enough.

Other Comments by howardb

33. Comment #296038 by beeline on December 3, 2008 at 5:56 am

Some religions do force people to believe in gods. And kill them if they don't, or at least exclude them from society. But in any case, I wouldn't argue that they do force people generally - the point I was making is that once people have beliefs (afterlife, animals, etc - as you mention) it is then very easy for political organisations to exploit those people's beliefs to further their own ends, at considerable expense to the individuals (both financially and in terms of their lifestyle). In this way many religions that were once 'private' have become horribly corrupted. Christianity is one such religion.

Those emotions that kick and make us believe in religion no matter what evidence comes forward, I believe is a human predisposition that has been breed into us by natural selection for 100,000's of years since we became aware of our own mortality.

You may be right, but for that to have been the case, 'being religious' must have generated some advantage to those genes' hosts within their society, and in the environment of other genes. It's not clear what those genes are, and it's certainly not clear what the advantages are either, separate from those that any community should be able to give to an individual.

If the only tangible benefit to an individual is supposed to happen after death, then that is rather outside the remit of natural selection, which only passes on genes during reproduction.

Other Comments by beeline

34. Comment #296063 by howardb on December 3, 2008 at 6:12 am

beeline wrote

If the only tangible benefit to an individual is supposed to happen after death, then that is rather outside the remit of natural selection, which only passes on genes during reproduction.

I'm making an assumption that when those first ancestors became aware of their own mortality, without religion I would think spent much of their time dwelling on it. Dwelling over something that had no resolution was a waste of time,energy and most of all distraction from your surroundings....Someone staring down on the ground many times thinking 'oh no I'm not going to exist one day' puts you at greater risk from getting killed by that lion over there as opposed to someone who believes in religion whom has their head,and spirit up and is complacent about their mortality.

Other Comments by howardb

35. Comment #296103 by Lucas on December 3, 2008 at 6:42 am

You may be right, but for that to have been the case, 'being religious' must have generated some advantage to those genes' hosts within their society, and in the environment of other genes. It's not clear what those genes are, and it's certainly not clear what the advantages are either, separate from those that any community should be able to give to an individual.

I think it's perfectly clear what the evolutionary advantage is in believing an unsubstantiated claim: avoidance of immediate danger. When someone yells, "Duck!" you duck, whether you have evidence that something is flying at your head or not. "Better safe than sorry" is really all there is to it, at least initially. Given that the existence of a dragon at the bottom of yon cave does not counter any factual, observed and tested, information about that cave, believing that the dragon is down there might be a better choice than exploring it. Of course, if you KNOW there is no such thing as dragons, you might as well go spelunking. Once someone has confirmed that there is no dragon, it would be silly to continue to avoid the cave, especially if it contains delicious mushrooms. Nonetheless, some people will continue to avoid the cave (and the dragon) despite the lack of evidence.

SO, the problem with religion is that it uses a part of the brain (mapped nicely by our good Mr. Harris, et al.) that, while useful for avoiding unknown and unproven danger, hampers rational decision making. Rational decisions based on evidence and observation are good for long term planning because they can more accurately predict the outcome of actions, while irrational beliefs are good for the short term when no evidence is available on which to base a rational decision.

Another example: when I stomp my foot on the floor near my roommate's cat, she runs away. I have fed, pet, and been very loving to this animal for quite a long time. Rationally, the cat should know that I present no danger, and in fact am her benefactor and protector. But she still runs away when I stomp. I would bet every dime I have that what is happening in the cat's brain, irrational avoidance of danger, is what is happening in human brains as well. It's just that we have developed greater computing capacity and can learn from experience. Why some people still think like an animal and don't used this capacity is a question worth exploring.

Other Comments by Lucas

36. Comment #296262 by fsm1965 on December 3, 2008 at 10:46 am

just like to echo the compliments, refreshing to hear non-dumbed down, flashy-graphix science.

Other Comments by fsm1965

37. Comment #296296 by The Hogfather on December 3, 2008 at 12:03 pm

What a wondeful and interesting fellow that Aubrey Manning is. Mind you the guy sitting opposite is quite an interesting chap as well.

Other Comments by The Hogfather

38. Comment #296304 by Stafford Gordon on December 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm

This must be commissioned by the BBC for world wide distribution; now!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

39. Comment #296345 by watcher_of_the_skies on December 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm

I was up at 3am last night watching this on YouTube.

Fantastic interview. Perhaps one of my favourite with Richard (not least because of his affection for cats!)

Other Comments by watcher_of_the_skies

40. Comment #296354 by the great teapot on December 3, 2008 at 1:23 pm

"ofcourse not consciously."
How he know?
we must keep ourselves above the dirty buggers.

Other Comments by the great teapot

41. Comment #296367 by retrospy on December 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Does anyone happen to know about the article Aubrey was refering to when he talked about the earth not being able to support all of the human inhabitants as of 1981 and if we give only 12.5% to all other species, that threshold was passed in 1970' I'd like know what time scale this threshold refered to.

Other Comments by retrospy

42. Comment #296408 by Wosret on December 3, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Yeah, the whole fear of death thing I can relate to, especially the "that's what we're afraid of" I said that exact thing around here sometime ago when talking about it. I have other places too.

Other Comments by Wosret

43. Comment #296415 by the great teapot on December 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm

retropsy
In 1692 they would have said the line was crossed in 1674.

Other Comments by the great teapot

44. Comment #296417 by 0.05 on December 3, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Brilliant! His textbook was an eye opener when I read it at uni in 1990 and it was great to see the man behind it.

Other Comments by 0.05

45. Comment #296484 by Gregg Townsend on December 3, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Josh and Richard, thank you very much indeed.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

46. Comment #296522 by Friend Giskard on December 3, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I want to add to the praise for Manning's "Earth Story". It is an exemplary science series. It is information-dense (no padding), it emphasises evidence at every step, and it is completely unpatronizing and highly absorbing. It also looks great, without being too flashy. I learned a lot from watching it. In fact, it is the complete opposite of what typically passes today for a TV science documentary. Something this good comes up only about once in ten years. Highly recommended.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

47. Comment #296809 by Hellene on December 4, 2008 at 4:42 am

I downloaded the QuickTime versions. Beautifully light, shot, and edited. Kudos to the "Crew".

Other Comments by Hellene

48. Comment #296831 by flying goose on December 4, 2008 at 5:03 am

If I might put in a request in for Richard Holloway's interview, and Rowan Williams...
maybe

Other Comments by flying goose

49. Comment #296860 by flying goose on December 4, 2008 at 5:54 am

Echo all of the above about AM, loved his programmes on radio 4. Understand his sympathy, I share it and recieve it in the spirit offered.

Other Comments by flying goose

50. Comment #296980 by nofaithalways on December 4, 2008 at 8:09 am

Very nice discussion
Mirror for faster download -
http://rapidshare.com/files/170203625/RD_20Aubrey-1.mov
http://rapidshare.com/files/170203601/RD_20Aubrey-2.mov
http://rapidshare.com/files/170203637/RD_20Aubrey-3.mov
http://rapidshare.com/files/170203821/RD_20Aubrey-4.mov
http://rapidshare.com/files/170203631/RD_20Aubrey-5.mov

Other Comments by nofaithalways