The Other Side of Midnight - Richard C. Hoagland - Live Chat Thread

[zeebo]

So long, and thanks for all the braaps!

[Barfly]

L8r all, its been a slice, a slice of what i dont know

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Nah, I like it when RCH throws his stuff at a knowledgeable guest, and that guest is able to throw it back at him.

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

I thought we where doing 3 hours?

That was a one time deal methinks

[AppealPlay]

I still give RCH credit for yesterdays show, the guests just sucked

Could be that, too.  Those guests were awful.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

A Michio Kaku show?

[trostol]

That was a one time deal methinks

special occasions..like this friday coming

[trostol]

A Michio Kaku show?

seems so..and if i wasnt tired i would stay to listen

[AppealPlay]

Michio?  Well...it would be fun if Hoagie went at him full force with his woo.

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

Well I enjoy the show tonight. not sure I would've enjoyed it as much without the thread. You were all excellent tonight! Braaps everyone!

Braaps Sister Warrior of the Midnight Wastelands.

[Mild Bill]

Good one, Rossy!

As always, love being here with y'all!

Braaps to all and to all a good night!

[trostol]

its from

The Exploration - 09-01-2015: Robert Callum

[TigerLily]

Braaps, darling braapsters. Sweet Dreams

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

Well...both shows combined equalled boredom for me.  As always though, loved the time spent with you all.  Tomorrow is a new day. 

BRAAPS! 

Love, Peace, and Hoagie grease!

Cheers all! 

Braaps Brother Shay

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

its from

The Exploration - 09-01-2015: Robert Callum

Hmm... Hoagland seemed more entertaining

[trostol]

alright..this lil braaper is going to bed...braaps to all you damn braapers

[norland2424]

braaps and goodnight ya bastards and women folk

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

So long, and thanks for all the braaps!

L8r all, its been a slice, a slice of what i dont know

Braaps, darling braapsters. Sweet Dreams

Braaps Brothers & Sisters of the Braap

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

alright..this lil braaper is going to bed...braaps to all you damn braapers

braaps and goodnight ya bastards and women folk

Braaps Brothers

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

Bad breath whales as an excuse for hunting them   ? WTF ? Peeps actually bought into this ?

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

Keep on Braapin' on Brothers, Sisters, Clerics, Priests, Priestess's, Decons, Cardinals, & High Priests and Priestess's of Club 19.5, The Cult of Braapinality,
& The Golden Order of the Braap.
'Til next we Braap-10-29.    10-5 to non-Braapsters, & 10-7 till next time.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Keep on Braapin' on Brothers, Sisters, Clerics, Priests, Priestess's, Decons, Cardinals, & High Priests and Priestess's of Club 19.5, The Cult of Braapinality,
& The Golden Order of the Braap.
'Til next we Braap-10-29.    10-5 to non-Braapsters, & 10-7 till next time.

10-10.

[Tarbaby]

Exceptionally good show with Richard and his astrophysicist guest tonight but I still find Richards neurotic in your face confrontational questioning annoying. Also, he confuses causality and correlation and jumps to the most conspiratorially assumptions rather than the simplest most supported reasonable assumption.
  Once again Richard has a guest on and actually badgers him rather than interviews him. I don't know if Richards confrontational style is based on bolstering his own sagging self image or what. Once again the guests showed amazing amount of restraint under Richards fierce hostile witness cross-examination technique.
  Again we see how Richard, when faced with almost any issue, be it the moon or Mars or Pluto or astrophysics, jumps to the most bizarre anti-establishment approach. The contrarian attitude which is enhanced by Richards brilliant mind. Nonetheless neurotic.

[TigerLily]

braaps and goodnight ya bastards and women folk

Bastardettes?

[TigerLily]

Exceptionally good show with Richard and his astrophysicist guest tonight but I still find Richards neurotic in your face confrontational questioning annoying. Also, he confuses causality and correlation and jumps to the most conspiratorially assumptions rather than the simplest most supported reasonable assumption.
  Once again Richard has a guest on and actually badgers him rather than interviews him. I don't know if Richards confrontational style is based on bolstering his own sagging self image or what. Once again the guests showed amazing amount of restraint under Richards fierce hostile witness cross-examination technique.
  Again we see how Richard, when faced with almost any issue, be it the moon or Mars or Pluto or astrophysics, jumps to the most bizarre anti-establishment approach. The contrarian attitude which is enhanced by Richards brilliant mind. Nonetheless neurotic.

A little harshly put but I agree completely. As I have mentioned before it's slightly more tolerable when live and I'm reading and posting. But 19.5ing? Forget about it

If this keeps up I'll bequeath my sub to Barfly

[GravitySucks]

Dammit Rossy. You never made my wake up call.  Slept right through it.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Exceptionally good show with Richard and his astrophysicist guest tonight but I still find Richards neurotic in your face confrontational questioning annoying. Also, he confuses causality and correlation and jumps to the most conspiratorially assumptions rather than the simplest most supported reasonable assumption.
  Once again Richard has a guest on and actually badgers him rather than interviews him. I don't know if Richards confrontational style is based on bolstering his own sagging self image or what. Once again the guests showed amazing amount of restraint under Richards fierce hostile witness cross-examination technique.
  Again we see how Richard, when faced with almost any issue, be it the moon or Mars or Pluto or astrophysics, jumps to the most bizarre anti-establishment approach. The contrarian attitude which is enhanced by Richards brilliant mind. Nonetheless neurotic.

The pseudo-scientist confronts.  The real scientist teaches.  I think that is what you are seeing here.  It is the job of the pseudo-scientist, or to Richard's annoyance, the conspiracist to elicit doubt in his audience.  It is his job to appeal to the biases and emotions of the everyman and everywoman (not to sound elitist... I'm an everyman too) who is often untrained and undisciplined in his approach to objective science.  So, the conspiricist does not have to be accountable so much as he has to sow doubt and appear to be confronting the establishment.

The Ph.D. scientist, on the other hand, has a professional reputation to uphold.  He has to appear not only as an authority, but he has to appear open minded and even-tempered.  He also has to be professionally accountable for everything he says, so cannot allow himself to be led into rashly making speculation or making attacks that are anything but objectively supported by the science.  And, although he may be accused of closed-mindedness, it is precisely his even temperament that must be maintained to demonstrate the opposite.  If he allows himself to become confrontational, then it would appear his arguments are ego-driven rather than driven by objective observation -- not only to his audience but also to his listening colleagues who he has to work with.  This would have the potential to diminish him in his own scientific community and affect his job and opportunities.

I also think there is a difference due to the product being marketed.  The conspiracist is basically marketing himself so must be firm on his views, whereas the Ph.D. scientist is marketing the science and, if he is a good scientist, is interested in analyzing and dissecting opposing views and teaching to clear up misconceptions and advocate scientific understanding rather than pushing his own opinions.

Well, those are my conclusions.  I'm not specifically talking about Richard or his guest, but this is something I've generally observed.

[SciFiAuthor]

The pseudo-scientist confronts.  The real scientist teaches.  I think that is what you are seeing here.  It is the job of the pseudo-scientist, or to Richard's annoyance, the conspiracist to elicit doubt in his audience.  It is his job to appeal to the biases and emotions of the everyman and everywoman (not to sound elitist... I'm an everyman too) who is often untrained and undisciplined in his approach to objective science.  So, the conspiricist does not have to be accountable so much as he has to sow doubt and appear to be confronting the establishment.

The Ph.D. scientist, on the other hand, has a professional reputation to uphold.  He has to appear not only as an authority, but he has to appear open minded and even-tempered.  He also has to be professionally accountable for everything he says, so cannot allow himself to be led into rashly making speculation or making attacks that are anything but objectively supported by the science.  And, although he may be accused of closed-mindedness, it is precisely his even temperament that must be maintained to demonstrate the opposite.  If he allows himself to become confrontational, then it would appear his arguments are ego-driven rather than driven by objective observation -- not only to his audience but also to his listening colleagues who he has to work with.  This would have the potential to diminish him in his own scientific community and affect his job and opportunities.

I also think there is a difference due to the product being marketed.  The conspiracist is basically marketing himself so must be firm on his views, whereas the Ph.D. scientist is marketing the science and, if he is a good scientist, is interested in analyzing and dissecting opposing views and teaching to clear up misconceptions and advocate scientific understanding rather than pushing his own opinions.

Well, those are my conclusions.  I'm not specifically talking about Richard or his guest, but this is something I've generally observed.

Very well put and astute observations. I would add in motive. The scientist's motive is the search for truth, they want to understand something as it really is. The pseudoscientist can have two motives, one is a misguided attempt at finding a preconceived "truth" such as a conspiracy by NASA or some other idea that requires a backing of pseudoscience. The other motive is purely financial. There is a market for pseudoscientific books therefore people fill that demand by developing a pseudoscientific narrative. I think after a time some of those that are financially motivated end up believing their own narrative in the same way one might believe their own lie if they tell it enough.

[chefist]

Very well put and astute observations. I would add in motive. The scientist's motive is the search for truth, they want to understand something as it really is. The pseudoscientist can have two motives, one is a misguided attempt at finding a preconceived "truth" such as a conspiracy by NASA or some other idea that requires a backing of pseudoscience. The other motive is purely financial. There is a market for pseudoscientific books therefore people fill that demand by developing a pseudoscientific narrative. I think after a time some of those that are financially motivated end up believing their own narrative in the same way one might believe their own lie if they tell it enough.

Interesting that you folks brought up this topic today given RCH's show last night.  I am a scientist...a chemist and engineer...in the simplest terms I consider science common sense...I need to be able to build a business based on predictable outcomes...only testing of theory and confirming your best ideas will suffice...testing and data that supports your supposition...only then can you prove you have solved a problem...

That being said...I listen to Art and his guests for entertainment...sometimes truth...sometimes fantasy and myth...and sometimes a brief glimpse into what may be reality now and in the future!

I'm on board for the ride...but like all rides I get off and go back to the real world...

[SciFiAuthor]

especially SciFiAuthor's comments about getting high and cuddling with his cupcake

I got one for you to send. Cupcake just told me that I'm "just not in Hoagland's league when it comes to sexy".