And so, another experiment. I am putting up a handful of introductory podcasts, to try and determine if there’s the faintest interest. This was based on a recommendation from, I believe, a blogger on Scientific American, and while I’m not entirely sold on the idea yet, I’m willing to give it a try. So I recorded a few previous posts and linked them below.
I can say that such ‘casts will almost always be on topics about critical thinking, because obviously I can’t illustrate anything I might talk about regarding nature photography, and even the other topics cannot have links attached. In most cases I’ll include a transcript, because I’m going to have to type it all up anyway – I won’t torture anyone (more than normally) by having them listen to my attempts to form a coherent sentence spontaneously. It’s bad enough that I’m using cheap equipment, but at least I have a halfway-decent editing program to remove the glitches and long pauses. The variations in recording level come from shifting how I was holding the microphone, which in future will be mounted someplace appropriate.
So at the very least, click on the introduction below:
If that wasn’t too painful, you can check out the other posts below. I’ve included links to the originals, so you can follow along and even use them to teach your children how to read – if you’re as cavalier about the use of language as I am, anyway. That does serve as a warning to anyone not using headphones, because the nasty words are preserved intact.
Feedback is welcome, most especially if you have any difficulty listening, and suggestions for improvements will be duly considered (including, “Dear god, stop, for the love of all that is holy!” Couching it in such religious terms will not help it be considered positively, however.) You can leave comments on this post, or reach me directly using the Contact page.
And so, my choice of first podcasts:
“To make magic – disappear!” from January 2012, kind of a skeptic’s manifesto.
“Hooray! I scored a ‘Not Negative!'” from February 2011, about the weaknesses of a far-too-common argument.
“Does science lead to atheism?” from September 2011, examining a rather suggestive question. This is the long one ;-)