On this episode of Spark: Open science, general knowledge, and doctors before the internet
- Tom Howell fixes his leaky sink with a little help from his father (and Skype)
- Daemon Fairless learns cabinetmaking, cooking, and guitar on YouTube
- Nora announces Spark’s “name that disappearing technology sound” contest
- Jenny Carpenter explains Open Science
- Nora mentions her full interview with Alain de Botton
- Mignon Fogarty (AKA Grammar Girl) explains where to place emoticons and links in email messages
- Your Job Before the Internet: Dr. Stewart Cameron
- Nora digs into the CBC Archives
- Francois Jacques worries about covert Googling at his pub trivia night
- Brian Cathcart wonders, Is Google Killing General Knowledge? (full interview)
This episode features Creative Commons music and sound effects:
- “226,” “204,” “219,” “Sunday Morning,” and “Toboggan” by Podington Bear
- “Theres Something Wrong” by Brad Sucks
- “Wadidyusay?” by Zap Mama
- “My Handy Man” by Ethel Waters and Andy Razaf (1928)
- “I’m Gonna Sit Right Down And Write Myself A Letter” by Fats Waller (1935)
- “lucubrationofthevoice” by _i (not CC, used with permission)
- “Up To No Good” from Backtime by Lee Rosevere
- “Spaced” and “Sat.” by CapoFrets
- “Forever blue (March Rosetta re-imagined version)” by Fabrizio Paterlini
- “second thoughts” by General Fuzz
- “Proliferate” by Chad Crouch
Play audio:
You can download this episode as an MP3, or receive Spark automatically by subscribing to any of our totally free podcast feeds:
- Free weekly podcast (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast + additional blog-only content (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast (low bandwidth version)
For more information (and instructions) visit cbc.ca/podcasting
[Original image by Marcin Wichary]
I love this episode. In fact, I'm loving all the new Spark episodes. Keep it up, guys!
I found the discussion about emoticons interesting. I do, however, think there was to much worry about smiley-faces inside parentheses. The solution is simple: If you have a smiley just before a closing parenthesis, then use a space between it and the parenthesis. Problem solved!
The solution to the problem of the smiley-face next to the closed parenthesis is this: Use a space between them! Not so hard, really.
(PS: Sorry about the double post!
) < See what I mean, BTW?
Mignon Fogarty’s advice about links was cute and all (as is her given name) but quite wrong.
The settled and established method of making links usable in an E-mail is to surround them with less-than and greater-than signs with no intervening spaces. It solves the problem of imposed linebreaks your segment couldn’t quite figure out it was actually dealing with. It obviates any need for a link-shortening service, which hides the destination you’re sending the recipient to. (That’s how fraud happens.)
Fogarty probably also top-posts. Everyone at Spark certainly does. Everyone at Spark certainly does. I wouldn’t trust her or Spark with any advice on the topic E-mail. [While I’m here, the other thing she talked about was also half wrong: If your smiley includes a paren, use brackets instead of parens to enclose the whole sentence
.]
Grammar Girl makes tons of mistakes, but because she’s so cute, and your listeners don’t know any better in the first place, she gets a free ride.
Thanks for your reply, Joe.
> Fogarty probably also top-posts. Everyone at Spark certainly does.
> Everyone at Spark certainly does.
Not true. Personally, I use inline replies most often. In fact, last year, you and I corresponded about Groupwise and top-posting:<http://www.theteamakers.com/2008/08/04/sloan/#com…
great show! i'm using the podcast in my ESL class to teach students for tips on how to send professional emails.
Thanks, Julia! One of our favourite things to hear is that the show is being used for educational purposes!
My dad complains that people who swear constantly do so because of a lack of vocabulary, and are not able to properly express themselves ("idiots"). That is how I generally feel about emoticons (not "idiots" though). An emoticon within a sentence or paragraph is usually redundant.
They come across as informal to me, but when your boss emails people in bright blue Comic Sans, formality isn't much of an issue anymore.
Great… I'm now immortalized for wondering aloud about smileys and parentheses. Sigh.
LOVED this episode. Keep up the great work, Spark!
I found this episode very interesting and currently hold Spark as my favourite podcast.
I am intrigued by the idea of science being more transparent by going online. I am currently a PhD student in bio engineering and am often struck by how much effort goes into PhD theses and how few people actually read the result. It seems that writing and publishing a thesis online would be very natural, however do you know what issues exist relating to copyright for this type endeavor?
The discussion on the show did not delve very much into the very real concerns related to scientific ideas and data being used by others to the detriment of the scientist posting the content. The argument put forward in the program that things changed in the past, so in the future things will change does not suggest anything about how they will in fact change.
I am relieved to have general knowledge at my finger tips since it certainly is never on the tip of my tongue. I don't have to lament my poor memory (so much) anymore. Except that I am _still_ looking forward to the "sixth sense" that will project the name and pertinent facts of the person I am speaking too. Since I haven't convinced everyone to wear name tags yet.
I have wondered, though, if Google has killed the conversation. No more fanciful "how did they do that?" or "what was that about?" chats. Someone Googles it and the topic is closed. It's like observing a flower; as soon as it's named, curiosity ceases.
I'm all over the sixth sense thing too, @catchsun. There's a great RPG (role playing game) called Eclipse Phase (http://www.eclipsephase.com/) set in a transhuman world. It talks about the transformation of human existence in "Living With Infotech" and "Muses" (p46-48). I disagree on the death of conversation, though. I never enjoy the "I can't remember the name of…" talks. They're a waste of words. You only want the name as a part of a conversation about a topic, and forgetting gets in the way. Having instant access to that kind of information stimulates interesting conversations in my experience. For example, I spend hours with my girlfriend, with each of us reading from wikipedia or similar sites on our iPhones. We follow the thread of curiousity, learn new things, and share them. We end up talking about the implications of the topic, rather than arguing about what it's called. For us, the name of the flower is only the first nibble at the banquet.
On the topic of General Knowledge and what should be in your memory, I don't think it's the right question to ask. For example: one of the callers mentioned geography as a key general knowledge. The example he cited to support this had nothing to do with general knowledge. it was a failure of observation and critical thinking that lead them north instead of south. I suspect the people in the cab would have followed a paper map the wrong way too. They didn't use their observational and analytical capabilities to assess their surroundings. They could have read a street sign, looked a the GPS compass or looked at the sun (things they likely did) but if they didn't connect the dots, their knowledge of geography was irrelevant.
If we're talking about facts that we should have in our heads instead of in daytimers, notebooks or wikipedia, I think the answer is more an algorithm than a subject area. Memory has some hey characteristics that are relevant. It is:
- Immediate: At least it feels like it most of the time.
- Hands Free: Usually, it just happens. No interfaces interfere with the "user experience" of recall, and it's something you can do while you do other things.
- Relational: Memory is part of a tapestry of experience, both internal and external, and it is vastly interconnected.
- Private: No one else can pull your memories out of your head – at least not today.
All this suggests that we should memorize information that matches one or more of the following criteria:
- Private
- Time-sensitive
- Unavailable externally when I am likely to need it
- Related to experiences I have had or I am likely to have
For me, two subjects where I memorize facts are my profession (Business Analysis), and computers and technology (I'm the family tech-support-guy). In the first case, I frequently facilitate meetings, and there's no chance for me to stop to look something up. In the second, the tool I would use to do research is usually the thing that I'm trying to repair.
This is a great topic; you may want to bring some brain science folks on the show to explore it in more depth. The Brain Science Podcast is a GREAT resource. As she puts it, it's "for anyone who has a brain". (http://docartemis.com/brainsciencepodcast/ – Dr. Ginger Campbell)
The logical extension of this is something that transhumanists think about a lot. There will come a day when people all have perfect digital memories; when the unreliable memory in our heads is supplemented with a very reliable record, and much of that record will be public. Eventually recall of facts from outside your head will be seamless to "the user". It's even possible that you may not be aware of where the information was stored – your brain or a device integrated into your brain or the internet. When that happens, "general knowledge" will be a meaningless phrase, and we'll be able to focus on what humans do really well: see patterns and imagine possibilities.
on the topic of what we should commit to memory…
One would be Music.
as a musician who plays traditional Irish fiddle, as well as other folk fiddle styles, there are all sorts of resources created by the trad music community such as the thesession.org or sites that list thousands of trad tunes in abc file format (a user created method of tune notation in text format) I would have to say that it is still best to learn tunes by heart. It certainly makes it easier to play with other people, or at for a dance, and you can really concentrate on the feel for the music. In any case trad music was generally learned by ear not from sheet music. Once you start doing it you become better at it and it also keeps your brain active (something to think about as we get older) Its not uncommon for trad musicians to know hundreds of tunes and the same goes for singers and lyrics for songs..
love your show .
Peter Kratoska
Hi Nora,
Quick Q, you mentioned, in passing, a show you were watching – I think you said it was from BBC – that you found hilarious… Dr Strange? Dr Savage? Doc Strange/Savage? Did I mis-hear?
I listen every weekend, keep it up!
Thanks,
Steve W
Hi Stephen,
It's called Doc Martin, with the wonderful Martin Clunes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408381/
Check it!