Author Topic: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo  (Read 3392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline starnado

  • the once and future king of tl;dr
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2015, 04:19:54 AM »
Well, I am starting to catch up again with the episodes since Massimo left and I have to say that I really enjoyed the Sean Carroll episode. I thought Julia did a fabulous job interviewing him. I am more optimistic now.

I really loved Massimo's voice though. Mellifluous Massimo *sigh*
'The little, stupid differences are nothing next to the big, stupid similarities'
Bart Simpson

Offline Plastiq

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2137
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2015, 11:10:23 AM »
I've been really enjoying it. I think she's come into her own.

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4539
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2015, 01:22:49 PM »
I was very disappointed when they announced Massimo's departure, but I find that I still enjoy the show. I think Julia is great.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline God Bomb

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2016, 11:59:47 AM »
I dropped this show a long time ago, not that I didn't like it.  it's just that philosophy sometimes goes over my head.  Why did Massimo leave the show?  Is it still basically the same topic?  I really like Julia too, she's smart and has a very nice voice. I was hoping the SGU would get her to replace Rebecca, but alas.
Fell deeds awake. Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the red dawn.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2016, 02:41:02 PM »
I'm not that big of a fan of Massimo. I find his critiques of certain individuals (like Dawkins and Hitchens) to be rather flawed. Not that these individuals can't be legitimately criticized, but I don't think Massimo has done so.

I like Julia much better, and I think the show has great potential even if she is alone at the helmet.

But who knows, maybe I haven't run upon the good Massimo writings yet?

I don't dislike Massimo though. But he has not been an intellectual infleunce on me.

I continue to wonder whether he and  :steve: are still co-writing that book they talked about last year.

According to what I could find, no, they are not. IMO Steve should just do it on his own. I estimate that a book written by Steven would have a high probability of being the best skeptical book ever written.
"Large skepticism leads to large understanding. Small skepticism leads to small understanding. No skepticism leads to no understanding." - Xi Zhi

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4539
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2016, 05:07:20 PM »
I dropped this show a long time ago, not that I didn't like it.  it's just that philosophy sometimes goes over my head.  Why did Massimo leave the show?  Is it still basically the same topic?  I really like Julia too, she's smart and has a very nice voice. I was hoping the SGU would get her to replace Rebecca, but alas.

Massimo left the show due to having so many commitments that he just didn't have enough time for Rationally Speaking. I agree that Julia Galef would have been the best possible replacement for Rebecca, but of course with her own show, and presumably a life, I imagine that two podcasts might have been a bit much.

Rationally Speaking has a very different character, to my ear, than it had before. It seems the topics are more wide-ranging, and not so philosophy-based. I still think it's a great show, and still one of my favorites. I've never had much respect for philosophy, but Massimo gave me such food for thought that I began to moderate my opinion of the field. I do miss him on the show.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2016, 06:38:04 PM »
I agree that Julia Galef would have been the best possible replacement for Rebecca, but of course with her own show, and presumably a life, I imagine that two podcasts might have been a bit much.

I agree in theory that Julia would have been a great replacement for Rebecca. But while both the SGU and RS are skeptical podcasts, it seems that their emphasises are somewhat different. SGU is very much science-focused, while RS has more of a mixture of subjects. I suppose Steve is much more of a science geek (and here I mean natural sciences) than Julia Galef (or Massimo) is, and I can see why they settled for Cara in the end, who has more of a scientific background than Julia has.
"Large skepticism leads to large understanding. Small skepticism leads to small understanding. No skepticism leads to no understanding." - Xi Zhi

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4539
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2016, 07:41:07 PM »
I agree that Julia Galef would have been the best possible replacement for Rebecca, but of course with her own show, and presumably a life, I imagine that two podcasts might have been a bit much.

I agree in theory that Julia would have been a great replacement for Rebecca. But while both the SGU and RS are skeptical podcasts, it seems that their emphasises are somewhat different. SGU is very much science-focused, while RS has more of a mixture of subjects. I suppose Steve is much more of a science geek (and here I mean natural sciences) than Julia Galef (or Massimo) is, and I can see why they settled for Cara in the end, who has more of a scientific background than Julia has.

I don't think they "settled" for Cara. I think they selected the best person available to them. I doubt Julia would have been available for another podcast.

I agree that the two podcasts have a very different focus. SGU is more dedicated to skepticism and the hard sciences and covers several topics in each show with themed segments. RS picks one topic and covers it in as much depth as the time of one podcast allows, with a guest specialist in the topic.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline lubbarin

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2017, 10:35:04 PM »
Anyone listened to the latest episode?

Guest Jason Brennan argued against democracy (by which they mean current democratic representitive republics and parliamentary governments) in favor of what amounts to a limited republic of qualified... elders? Citizens?

Anyway, it was a compelling conversation, but I feel like a lot of counterpoints and challenges went ignored, a few major assumptions unexamined.

It was simply a given that increased political participation has made people qualitatively worse in any number of ways than they were in the 17th century! No joke.
And not simply partisan politics, or contemporary social media/ cable news fraught partisan politics, but all democratic politics.

Jason Brennan is a reasonable and intelligent person, though, not some maximalist idealogue- he (even in the scope of this conversation, which I'm certain everyone involved knew was pretty much academic) advocated for tests and small steps, and allowing for messy realities in inplimentation, so I respect that.

One moment that jumps to mind in particular was the suggestion that Voting Citizen qualification standards could be set democratically.
Which had me begging the invisible people in my earphones, "oh, dear Spock no. That is a bullet train to theocracy."
Can you imagine the qualifications imposed for this experiment in Oklahoma? Or Louisiana?
Egads.

Anyway, good show as usual.
I am in favor of killing all whales on principle. Where is my avalanche of 'provocateur' money?

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4539
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2017, 10:03:46 AM »
It's on my queue. I'll listen to it today.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10013
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2017, 11:07:30 AM »
I agree that Julia Galef would have been the best possible replacement for Rebecca, but of course with her own show, and presumably a life, I imagine that two podcasts might have been a bit much.

I agree in theory that Julia would have been a great replacement for Rebecca. But while both the SGU and RS are skeptical podcasts, it seems that their emphasises are somewhat different. SGU is very much science-focused, while RS has more of a mixture of subjects. I suppose Steve is much more of a science geek (and here I mean natural sciences) than Julia Galef (or Massimo) is, and I can see why they settled for Cara in the end, who has more of a scientific background than Julia has.

I don't think they "settled" for Cara. I think they selected the best person available to them. I doubt Julia would have been available for another podcast.

I agree that the two podcasts have a very different focus. SGU is more dedicated to skepticism and the hard sciences and covers several topics in each show with themed segments. RS picks one topic and covers it in as much depth as the time of one podcast allows, with a guest specialist in the topic.
Cara also has another podcast and a media career.
I think they were lucky to get her and even though I very much admire Julia, I think Cara is the best fit for the SGU.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10633
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2017, 11:16:47 AM »
Anyone listened to the latest episode?

Guest Jason Brennan argued against democracy (by which they mean current democratic representitive republics and parliamentary governments) in favor of what amounts to a limited republic of qualified... elders? Citizens?
Its been awhile since I've listen but as someone who has long been tepid regarding democracy and rapidly becoming antagonistic towards it, I shall listen to confirm my biases. 

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4539
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Rationally Speaking sans Massimo
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2017, 07:48:28 PM »
I hope the quote of my words above is not taken as a slight on Cara. I love Cara and think she is wonderful and that the SGU is lucky to have her and we are lucky to have her on the show. It's just that Julia Galef is one of my favorite public figures. (Along with Rebecca, and my number-one favorite person, violinist Hilary Hahn.) I never expected that the SGU could have gotten Julia. Oh, and I'd characterize the difference between the two shows as being that the SGU is a magazine-style science and skepticism show, while Rationally Speaking is more a philosophy show that tackles one issue per episode.

On the current episode with Jason Brennan, it was extremely interesting and thought-provoking. I have very mixed feelings about democracy. On the one hand, I feel it has utterly failed in the United States. On the other hand, what has failed here is really not democracy at all, nor has it ever been. In the last quarter century (post-reagan, who I think was senile) we have had two presidents who are arguably extremely stupid men. Both were elected by the electoral college against the popular majority, that went to their massively more-intelligent opponents. At the state level, gerrymandering has killed any real democracy. Wealthy conservatives backed state house candidates, who, when they got control of state houses, gerrymandered the federal legislative districts, which is why we have a Republican House today. Not democracy. Not the votes of the people, but cynical, crooked gerrymandering.

So, perhaps my conviction that democracy has failed is really not a judgement against democracy, but rather against the very undemocratic and crooked money politics of this nation.

Brennan didn't really answer to my satisfaction how the decision would be made of who gets to vote and who does not. Julia asked the questions, but never really got a better answer than, "Try it in some place small and see if it works."

I'd like to see gerrymandered districts eliminated in favor of straight-line grid-based districts, and all money and paid advertising eliminated from elections, in favor of equal free time to every candidate who qualifies for the ballot, and elimination of the automatic inclusion on the ballot of the nominees of established parties. Every candidate should have to qualify under one single set of rules.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain
personate-rain