Big Bang Big Boom: Graffiti Stop-Motion Animation Creatively Depicts the Evolution of Life

There’s a rapa­cious, run-amok ener­gy to Ital­ian street artist Blu’s stop motion ani­ma­tion, “BIG BANG BIG BOOM.” How­ev­er long it took him, assist­ed by a slew of local artists, to ren­der a host of paint­ed large-scale char­ac­ters across a pri­mar­i­ly indus­tri­al land­scape in Argenti­na and Uruguay, it takes less than ten, glo­ri­ous­ly grit­ty min­utes for his just-dawned world to destroy itself.

This is evo­lu­tion at its most apoc­ryphal (and least sci­en­tif­ic). Crus­taceans and giant lizards who mere decades ago would have ter­ror­ized the streets of Tokyo are here no match for man. In fact, man is no match for man, rapid­ly engi­neer­ing his own demise as he chas­es about an appro­pri­ate­ly cir­cu­lar, aban­doned-look­ing silo.

The nec­es­sary demise of his murals—animation frames, if you like—serves as a nifty reminder of the evo­lu­tion­ary fate of most street art. A Banksy care­ful­ly pre­served beneath Plexi is the excep­tion, and even that is no guar­an­tee of per­ma­nence. Case in point, New York City’s leg­endary “insti­tute of high­er burn­ing,” 5 Pointz, whose 200,000-square-feet were recent­ly white­washed into noth­ing­ness overnight.

Boom indeed.

 Relat­ed Con­tent:

Banksy Cre­ates a Tiny Repli­ca of The Great Sphinx Of Giza In Queens

Obey the Giant: Short Film Presents the True Sto­ry of Shep­ard Fairey’s First Act of Street Art

Artists Paint Paris, Berlin and Lon­don with High-Tech Video Graf­fi­ti

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the long run­ning zine, The East Vil­lage Inky. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

Richard Feynman on Religion, Science, the Search for Truth & Our Willingness to Live with Doubt

A com­plete­ly unsur­pris­ing thing has hap­pened dur­ing the first sea­son of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cos­mos reboot. Cre­ation­ists vocal­ly com­plained that the show does not give their point of view an equal hear­ing. Tyson respond­ed, say­ing “you don’t talk about the spher­i­cal earth with NASA and then say let’s give equal time to the flat-earth­ers.” The anal­o­gy is more amus­ing than effec­tive, since rough­ly fifty per­cent of Amer­i­cans are Cre­ation­ists, while per­haps 49.9 per­cent few­er believe the earth is flat. But the point stands. If sci­en­tif­ic the­o­ries were arrived at by pop­u­lar vote, the “equal time” argu­ment might make some sense. Of course that’s not how sci­ence works. Is this bias? As Tyson put it in one of his well-craft­ed tweets, “you are not biased any time you ever speak the truth.”

“But what is truth?” asks a cer­tain kind of skep­tic. That, sug­gests the late Nobel prize-win­ning physi­cist Richard Feyn­man above, depends upon your method. If you’re doing sci­ence, you may find answers, but not nec­es­sar­i­ly the ones you want:

If you expect­ed sci­ence to give all the answers to the won­der­ful ques­tions about what we are, where we’re going, what the mean­ing of the uni­verse is and so on, then I think you can eas­i­ly become dis­il­lu­sioned and look for some mys­tic answer.

Going to the sci­ences, says Feyn­man, to “get an answer to some deep philo­soph­i­cal ques­tion,” means “you may be wrong. It may be that you can’t get an answer to that ques­tion by find­ing out more about the char­ac­ter of nature.” Sci­ence does not begin with answers, but with doubt: “Is sci­ence true? No, no we don’t know what’s true, we’re try­ing to find out.” Feynman’s sci­en­tif­ic atti­tude is pro­found­ly agnos­tic; he’d rather “live with doubt than have answers that might be wrong.”

Feyn­man couch­es his com­ments in per­son­al terms, admit­ting there are sci­en­tists who have reli­gious faith, or as he puts it “mys­tic answers,” and that he “doesn’t under­stand that.” He declines to say any­thing more. While sim­i­lar­ly agnos­tic, Neil deGrasse Tyson states his opin­ions a bit more force­ful­ly on sci­en­tists who are believ­ers, say­ing that around one third of “ful­ly-func­tion­ing” “Western/American sci­en­tists claim that there is a god to whom they pray.” Yet unlike the claims of Answers in Gen­e­sis and oth­er Cre­ation­ist out­fits, “There is no exam­ple of some­one read­ing their scrip­ture and say­ing, ‘I have a pre­dic­tion about the world that no one knows yet, because this gave me insight. Let’s go test that pre­dic­tion,’ and have the pre­dic­tion be cor­rect.”

Both Feyn­man and Tyson seem to agree that the sci­en­tif­ic and Cre­ation­ist meth­ods for dis­cov­er­ing “truth,” what­ev­er that may be, are basi­cal­ly incom­pat­i­ble. Says Feyn­man: “There are very remark­able mys­ter­ies… but those are mys­ter­ies I want to inves­ti­gate with­out know­ing the answers to them.” For that rea­son, says Feyn­man, he “can’t believe the spe­cial sto­ries that have been made up about our rela­tion­ship to the uni­verse.” His word­ing recalls the phrase Answers in Gen­e­sis uses to char­ac­ter­ize human ori­gins: “spe­cial cre­ation,” the descrip­tion of a method that places mean­ing and val­ue before evi­dence, and dogged­ly assumes to know the truth about what it sets out to inves­ti­gate in igno­rance.

Con­front­ed with the Cre­ation­ists of today, Feyn­man would like­ly lump them in with what he called in a 1974 Cal­tech com­mence­ment speech “Car­go Cult Sci­ence,” or “sci­ence that isn’t sci­ence” but that intim­i­dates “ordi­nary peo­ple with com­mon­sense ideas.” That lec­ture appears in a col­lec­tion of Feynman’s speech­es, lec­tures, inter­views and arti­cles called The Plea­sure of Find­ing Things Out, which also hap­pens to be the title of the pro­gram from which the clip at the top comes.

Pro­duced by the BBC in 1981, the hour-long inter­view was taped for a show called Hori­zon which, like Cos­mos, show­cas­es sci­en­tists shar­ing the joys of dis­cov­ery with a lay audi­ence. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan before him, Feyn­man was a very lik­able and accom­plished sci­ence com­mu­ni­ca­tor. He had lit­tle time for phi­los­o­phy, but his prac­tice of the sci­en­tif­ic method is unim­peach­able. Of the Feyn­man TV spe­cial above, Nobel Prize-win­ning chemist Sir Har­ry Kro­to remarked: “The 1981 Feyn­man-Hori­zon is the best sci­ence pro­gram I have ever seen. This is not just my opin­ion — it is also the opin­ion of many of the best sci­en­tists that I know who have seen the pro­gram… It should be manda­to­ry view­ing for all stu­dents whether they be sci­ence or arts stu­dents.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

‘The Char­ac­ter of Phys­i­cal Law’: Richard Feynman’s Leg­endary Course Pre­sent­ed at Cor­nell, 1964

Richard Feyn­man Intro­duces the World to Nan­otech­nol­o­gy with Two Sem­i­nal Lec­tures (1959 & 1984)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

abNormal: A Short Documentary on the Science of Being Different

What do a dancer, a chess play­er, a visu­al artist, a trum­peter, an archi­tect, and a cab dri­ver have in com­mon? In the case of the dancer, the chess play­er, the visu­al artist, the trum­peter, the archi­tect, and the cab dri­ver pro­filed in trained mol­e­c­u­lar biol­o­gist and neu­ro­sci­en­tist and The Rough Guide to the Brain author Bar­ry J. Gibb’s abNor­mal above, they share… well, abnor­mal­i­ty, in some sense or anoth­er. This half-hour doc­u­men­tary, which Gibb made in con­sul­ta­tion with psy­chol­o­gist and neu­roimag­ing researcher Chris Frith, “points a micro­scope at human behav­iour, ask­ing view­ers to ques­tion their per­cep­tions of oth­ers and even of them­selves.” An ambi­tious man­date, espe­cial­ly when you con­sid­er its cen­tral ques­tion: we know what we mean when we think of some­one else as abnor­mal, but what do all these oth­er peo­ple — peo­ple whom we might indeed find abnor­mal, for good, ill, or both — con­sid­er abnor­mal? Do they con­sid­er them­selves abnor­mal? And how do we define nor­mal­i­ty, let alone abnor­mal­i­ty, in the first place?

A tan­gled ques­tion, bor­der­ing on non­sense, but sci­ence can, as usu­al, clar­i­fy a few things. abNor­mal finds answers, or at least the appro­pri­ate ques­tions, in the work­ings of the human brain. It comes as an ear­ly offer­ing from Mosa­ic, a new site from the Well­come Trust “ded­i­cat­ed to explor­ing the sci­ence of life” by telling “sto­ries with real depth about the ideas, trends and peo­ple that dri­ve con­tem­po­rary life sci­ences,” all pub­lished as Cre­ative Com­mons-licensed con­tent. In this case, a set of human sto­ries — the frus­trat­ed IT work­er who ditched the office job to become a Lon­don cab­bie, the Thai painter who makes large-form works with three-dimen­sion­al nip­ples, the break­dancer bent on recre­at­ing and improv­ing on 1982 with his body alone — con­verge to elu­ci­date a deep­er sci­en­tif­ic nar­ra­tive about our brains, our envi­ron­ments, and the forms our lives take today.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

This is Your Brain on Sex and Reli­gion: Exper­i­ments in Neu­ro­science

Steven Pinker Explains the Neu­ro­science of Swear­ing (NSFW)

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Watch Episode #2 of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos: Explains the Reality of Evolution (US Viewers)

On Sun­day night, Fox view­ers were treat­ed to Episode #2 of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s new Cos­mos series. (If you’re locat­ed in the US, you can watch it free online above.)  This episode was called “Some of the Things That Mol­e­cules Can Do,” and it gave view­ers an hour-long edu­ca­tion on the Earth­’s many life forms and the well-doc­u­ment­ed the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion. Along the way, Tyson care­ful­ly refut­ed, as Moth­er Jones notes, one of “cre­ation­ist’s favorite canards: The idea that com­plex organs, like the eye, could not have been pro­duced through evo­lu­tion.” And, to cap things off, Tyson declared, “Some claim evo­lu­tion is just a the­o­ry, as if it were mere­ly an opin­ion. The the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion, like the the­o­ry of grav­i­ty, is a sci­en­tif­ic fact. Evo­lu­tion real­ly hap­pened.” For sci­en­tists, it’s not up for debate.

When Fox aired the first episode (watch it online here), one Fox affil­i­ate in Okla­homa City appar­ent­ly man­aged to edit out the only men­tion of the word “evo­lu­tion” in the show. It would be inter­est­ing to know they han­dled this entire sec­ond show.

Future episodes of Cos­mos can be viewed at Hulu.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Watch the High­ly-Antic­i­pat­ed Evolution/Creationism Debate: Bill Nye the Sci­ence Guy v. Cre­ation­ist Ken Ham

Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Nev­er a First Human Being

Dar­win: A 1993 Film by Peter Green­away

Free Course: “Dar­win and Design” Exam­ines Philo­soph­i­cal Ques­tions of Intel­li­gence and Human Behav­ior

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 26 ) |

World Science U Starts to Offer Innovative, Free Courses in the Sciences

In high school, my physics teacher taught the class by hav­ing us lis­ten to his long, monot­o­nous lec­tures. After I real­ized that I couldn’t digest his ver­bal lessons, I stopped lis­ten­ing. Instead, I picked up a text­book and nev­er looked back. I can only imag­ine how much bet­ter off I would have been had I tak­en a physics class like Bri­an Greene’s spe­cial rel­a­tiv­i­ty course on World Sci­ence U.

We fea­tured Greene’s work two years ago, when the Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty physi­cist and math­e­mati­cian launched his impres­sive PBS series, The Fab­ric of The Cos­mos. Now, Greene and oth­er sci­en­tists have cre­at­ed a new edu­ca­tion plat­form called World Sci­ence U, and it promis­es to offer rich, rig­or­ous and engag­ing cours­es in the sci­ences — for free. As Greene explains above, the free cours­es offered by World Sci­ence U take abstract con­cepts and rep­re­sent them graph­i­cal­ly, using a slew of inter­ac­tive activ­i­ties and real-world sce­nar­ios. Stu­dents receive imme­di­ate per­for­mance feed­back on the prob­lem sets they com­plete, and have access to a large num­ber of video lec­tures. The­o­ry is illus­trat­ed by way of intu­itive ani­ma­tions, and exer­cis­es are paired with video solu­tions that take stu­dents through the ide­al way to derive the answer.

Although lat­er class­es will tack­le gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­tyquan­tum mechan­ics, and oth­er sub­jects, World Sci­ence U has only two full cours­es avail­able at present. The first is Greene’s brief con­cep­tu­al class on spe­cial rel­a­tiv­i­ty that lasts 2–3 weeks, called Space, Time, and Ein­steinThere’s also a more advanced, uni­ver­si­ty lev­el course on the same top­ic called Spe­cial Rel­a­tiv­i­tywhich lasts about 10 weeks. Inter­est­ed? We’ll let Greene him­self tell you a lit­tle more about them in the video below.

World Sci­ence U also has a nifty sec­tion called Sci­ence Unplugged, where read­ers can find dozens of short video answers to a mul­ti­tude of ques­tions they may have about sci­en­tif­ic con­cepts, like dark mat­ter and quan­tum mechan­ics. Below, for exam­ple, Greene explains the anthrop­ic prin­ci­ple:

To learn more, vis­it World Sci­ence U. We’ve added its ear­ly cours­es to our large list of free physics cours­es, part of our com­pendi­um of over 825 free online cours­es.

Ilia Blin­d­er­man is a Mon­tre­al-based cul­ture and sci­ence writer. Fol­low him at @iliablinderman, or read more of his writ­ing at the Huff­in­g­ton Post.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Fab­ric of the Cos­mos with Bri­an Greene: Watch the Com­plete NOVA Series Online

The Ori­gins Project Brings Togeth­er Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Ira Fla­tow, and More on One Stage

Free Course: “Darwin and Design” Examines Philosophical Questions of Intelligence and Human Behavior


Darwin’s the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion by nat­ur­al selec­tion pro­vid­ed a sci­en­tif­ic answer to a philo­soph­i­cal ques­tion: must design imply a design­er? To the dis­may and dis­be­lief of many of Darwin’s con­tem­po­raries, and a great many still, his the­o­ry can answer the ques­tion in the neg­a­tive. But there are many more ques­tions yet to ask about seem­ing­ly designed sys­tems, such as those posed by Alan Tur­ing and John Sear­le: might such orga­nized sys­tems, nat­ur­al and man­made, them­selves be intel­li­gent? The his­to­ry of these inquiries among philoso­phers, sci­en­tists, and writ­ers is the sub­ject of Prof. James Par­adis’ MIT course, “Dar­win and Design.” The class explores such a diverse range of texts as Aristotle’s Physics, the Bible, Adam’s Smith’s Wealth of Nations, William Gibson’s Neu­ro­mancer, and of course, Darwin’s Ori­gin of Species.

Along­side the sci­en­tif­ic con­clu­sions so-called “Dar­win­ism” draws are the impli­ca­tions for human self-under­stand­ing. Giv­en the thou­sands of years in which human­i­ty placed itself at the cen­ter of the uni­verse, and the few hun­dred in which it at least held fast to con­cepts of its spe­cial cre­ation, what, asks Prof. Par­adis, does Dar­win­ism mean “for ideas of nature and of mankind’s place there­in?” The class explores this ques­tion through “man­i­fes­ta­tions of such unde­signed worlds in lit­er­ary texts” both clas­si­cal and con­tem­po­rary. See the full course descrip­tion below:

Humans are social ani­mals; social demands, both coop­er­a­tive and com­pet­i­tive, struc­ture our devel­op­ment, our brain and our mind. This course cov­ers social devel­op­ment, social behav­iour, social cog­ni­tion and social neu­ro­science, in both human and non-human social ani­mals. Top­ics include altru­ism, empa­thy, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, the­o­ry of mind, aggres­sion, pow­er, groups, mat­ing, and moral­i­ty. Meth­ods include evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gy, neu­ro­science, cog­ni­tive sci­ence, social psy­chol­o­gy and anthro­pol­o­gy.

Prof. Par­adis taught the class in the Fall of 2010, but thanks to MIT’s Open Course­ware, all of the lec­tures (above), assign­ments, and course mate­ri­als are freely avail­able, though you’ll have to pur­chase most of the texts (you can find some in our list of 500 free ebooks). You can’t reg­is­ter or receive cred­it for the course—so you can skip writ­ing the papers and meet­ing  dead­lines of around 100 pages of read­ing per week—but if you work through some or all of the lec­tures and assigned read­ings, Prof. Par­adis promis­es an enlight­en­ing “his­tor­i­cal foun­da­tion for under­stand­ing a rich lit­er­ary tra­di­tion, as well as many assump­tions held by peo­ple in many con­tem­po­rary cul­tures.” Giv­en that this is an MIT course, Prof. Par­adis assumes some famil­iar­i­ty on the part of his stu­dents with the basic Dar­win­ian con­cepts and con­tro­ver­sies. For a broad overview of Dar­win’s impor­tance to a wide vari­ety of fields, take a look at Stan­ford’s online lec­ture series “Dar­win’s Lega­cy.”

“Dar­win and Design” is but one of over 800 free online cours­es we’ve com­piled, includ­ing many on evo­lu­tion, anthro­pol­o­gy, phi­los­o­phy, and cog­ni­tive sci­ence.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Genius of Charles Dar­win Revealed in Three-Part Series by Richard Dawkins

Dar­win: A 1993 Film by Peter Green­away

Charles Darwin’s Son Draws Cute Pic­tures on the Man­u­script of On the Ori­gin of Species

875 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

A Playlist of Music Scientifically-Proven to Increase Cows’ Milk Production: REM, Lou Reed & More

cow-music-milking

Image by Daniel Schwen via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

Let’s test our agri­cul­ture math skills with a lit­tle dairy indus­try sto­ry prob­lem:

If an 8‑ounce glass of whole milk pro­vides 149 calo­ries, 8 grams of pro­tein, 276 mil­ligrams of cal­ci­um, 8 grams of fat, 4.5 grams of sat­u­rat­ed fat and 24 mil­ligrams of cho­les­terol, and a cup of two-per­cent milk has 120 calo­ries, 5 grams of fat, 3 grams of sat­u­rat­ed fat and 20 mil­ligrams of cho­les­terol, what kind of music will result in an over­all milk pro­duc­tion increase of 3%?

Accord­ing to a study at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Leices­ter School of Psy­chol­o­gy, the answer is slow jams and easy lis­ten­ing.

Huh. Based on the con­cert tees of the boys I grew up around in Indi­ana, I would have guessed Rush or Guns N’ Ros­es. (Maybe there was some Bar­ry Manilow going on behind closed barn doors?)

Actu­al­ly, research shows that bovine musi­cal pref­er­ence, like that of aer­o­bics instruc­tors, hinges less on any spe­cif­ic artist than on beats per minute.

…I hope they did­n’t spend too much on this study. Upon reflec­tion, isn’t it just com­mon sense that noise-sen­si­tive herd ani­mals attached to machines via their udders would choose a mel­low groove over death met­al or psy­chobil­ly?

(Poor Bana­nara­ma. It must’ve stung when the Uni­ver­si­ty of Leices­ter’s team told the world that 1,000 Hol­stein Friesian cat­tle liked lis­ten­ing to noth­ing at all bet­ter than their 1986 Bill­board Hot 100 #1 hit, “Venus.”)

To para­phrase anoth­er 80’s fave, I know what cows like, thanks to a pan­el of five Hol­steins who got to pick the win­ner of the British Colum­bia Dairy Asso­ci­a­tion’s 2012 “Music Makes More Milk” con­test. Brace your­self:

Did any­one else just imag­ine a thou­sand cows with phones to their ears, chew­ing their cuds and swish­ing their tails, con­tent to remain on hold indef­i­nite­ly?

Should the above tune ever grow old (doubt­ful) there’s always Shake­speare. Accord­ing to NPR, a the­atri­cal read­ing of “The Mer­ry Wives of Wind­sor” proved pop­u­lar, milk-wise, with an audi­ence of UK cows. And Mod­ern Farmer has hon­ored Lou Reed by includ­ing one of his com­po­si­tions (no, not “Met­al Machine Music, Part 1”) in their recent Playlist To Milk By:

Every­body Hurts,” REM

What a Dif­fer­ence A Day Makes,” Aretha Franklin

Bridge Over Trou­bled Water,” Simon & Gar­funkel

Moon Riv­er,” Dan­ny Williams

Orinoco Flow,” Celtic Woman

Per­fect Day,” Lou Reed (The Lit­tle Willie’s Lou Reed cow-tip­ping song aside, can you pic­ture him milk­ing one?)

via Grist

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Jazz for Cows

Sir Patrick Stew­art Demon­strates How Cows Moo in Dif­fer­ent Eng­lish Accents

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, zine pub­lish­er, and recent con­vert to almond milk. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

The Chemistry of Sriracha & What Sets Your Mouth Aflame

If you head over to the Huy Fong Foods web site, they’ll tell you that Sriracha, their ever-pop­u­lar Thai condi­ment, is “made from sun ripen chilies which are ground into a smooth paste along with gar­lic and pack­aged in a con­ve­nient squeeze bot­tle.” It’s the chilies that make your mouth burn when you pour that Sriracha onto your eggs or burg­ers, or in your soup and, yes, cock­tails. But if you want to get sci­en­tif­ic about things, it’s actu­al­ly the cap­saicin and dihy­dro­cap­saicin — the two com­pounds inside the hot pep­pers — that set your mouth aflame.  All of this, and more, gets cov­ered by this new video, The Chem­istry of Sriracha, from the Amer­i­can Chem­i­cal Soci­ety. It’s part of their video series, Reac­tions, that exam­ines the chem­istry of every­day things.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Chem­istry Cours­es

The Fas­ci­nat­ing Sci­ence of Snow

“The Peri­od­ic Table Table” — All The Ele­ments in Hand-Carved Wood

The Ele­ments: Tom Lehrer Recites Chem­i­cal Ele­ments to the Tune of Gilbert & Sul­li­van

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast