Royal Institute Christmas Lectures

Elegran

Differing opinions are fine, so long as no-one forgets that this is a site for conversations, not a debating chamber.

...or a place to insult people who have a different viewpoint to yours and try to stop them posting.

Differing opinions are fine, so long as no-one forgets that this is a site for conversations, not a debating chamber.

Well, as the person who started this thread, I would just like to end my contribution by saying I would defend on the barricades the right of anyone to voice their opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I enjoyed the thread, if only because I never expected the response it got. Meanwhile, it's PMQs tomorrow at 3pm, I am reliably informed. Now, there's an opportunity for even more debate. Onward and upward.

Och away with you.

We're all allowed to have different opinions. Mine is very clear from what I've written. Others have a different opinion and that's OK.

But when others' opinions extended to calling me an intellectual snob, jealous, patronising or to putting words in my mouth, expect to be answered robustly.

Alegrias1

Scientists like to debate things

There’s debating - which seems to involve more than one side to an argument and there’s starting a rammy in an empty room.

Each to their own Deedaa.

As do lawyers ?

Sorry Germanshepherdsmum but I didn't find it at all primary school and neither did DD (PhD Biochemistry and leading research in gene editing) we both thought we learnt things, but perhaps we're just suffering from arrested development.

Scientists like to debate things

Och some people just like an argument!

I think I must be more generous with my praise when people who would not naturally be talking to children about their field of expertise give it a go, especially for an issue which will affect them all their lives. I commented to my daughter, who was listening with me, that it was obvious they were somewhat out of their comfort zone. Perhaps JVT had been 'told' by a well-meaning member of the production team that he needed a gimmick to catch the young people's attention, otherwise he would just be that serious old geezer next to BJ on the daily briefing. I missed the 'shirt' incident first time round and had to watch it on replay when I realised it was an issue for some. Yes, I agree, it was 'naff' but hardly a hanging offence. Well done to them for taking the time out to give it a go. Cheer up GNs, politics is back, proper news is back, Parliament is back, juicy stories in the news are back.
Again, thanks for all your contributions. I enjoyed reading all your posts and am amazed it went on this long. At most, I expected about a dozen posts. Just goes to show, you never know what grabs people's attention. Happy New Year to one and all.

My pleasure Alegrias. I had to add my tuppence worth in your support after the stick you received. Had it been a legal lecture the television would no longer be functioning.

Wouldn't have been worth it, honestly. Even the broken sneeze gun wouldn't have been worth the wait.

Life's too short.

Thanks GSM.

You should have persevered.

Needless to say I stopped watching very quickly.

Sorry but I have resurrected it in order to sympathise with Alegrias. We recorded the lectures and just started to watch. Better late than never I thought. Dear God, it’s like being transported back to primary school.

Oh yes, Aveline!

Can't believe this thread is still going.
???

Aye, OK, we get it.

twitter.com/AccidentalP/status/1475960631467651076

The young audience look enthralled.

So, in my final defence statement m’lud; previous lectures were not "high-brow" but they were about science, presented for a general audience

I am sure you will have the final word but the lectures were and are aimed at young people as has been quoted more than once from the history of the Royal Institution lectures as Michael Faraday’s original intention.
Most of us recognise that learning is lifelong and whatever our age, we can enjoy and learn from good communicators who are experts in their field,

Thank you Devorgilla for commenting that we had a debate and that that’s OK. I’ve learnt a lot from this thread; principally that any perceived criticism of St Sir Jonathan is equivalent to criticising the Queen and must be jumped on from a great height. It must surely only be motivated by jealousy or intellectual snobbery. I’ve learnt that people don’t read posts properly or perhaps impose their own prejudices on what the poster is saying.

So, in my final defence statement m’lud; previous lectures were not "high-brow" but they were about science, presented for a general audience and nobody tore their shirt off. They weren't public health presentations made more palatable by being presented by someone you’ve heard of. Previous lectures were not given by “well known” scientists but by…well…just by scientists, not government spokespeople. Maybe posters don’t like me saying that, but it’s the truth.

So I’ll look forward to joining you next year for a lively discussion about space travel, or prime numbers, or some other topic in science which isn’t quite as favoured with the GN demographic and will probably pass by unnoticed and dismissed as too hard and too expensive and too wasteful.

Live long and prosper

Muse "From the other posts though, it is clear that the Lectures, or rather JVT himself, did successfully reach a much wider age range. Twitter is evidence of the general audience it drew in." and is also evidence that he did a successful presentation.

The reason for the size of the audience must be that he was a well-known name and face to many people who would never have tuned in to watch a someone who may be at the top of his field, and a household name to other scientists, but is anonymous to the general public.

Granted, there are famous scientists who might have both drawn in the audience and given a good presentation, but at the moment the big scientific myth-generator is CoVid, and a large audience of not-very-well-up-on-all-that was the first thing needed, so as to spread the facts as widely as possible..

Thank you for starting the thread Devorgilla.

Although the discussion/debate did wander off the aim of the RI's intention of creating a science programme that engaged their target age range 11-17, I agree with this quote from your post: "I still think the lectures did what they set out to do, which was to educate the young and put to rest some of the inaccurate information out there".

I do hope PamelaJ1 came back to the thread to read that she was wrongly criticised in saying that the RI lectures are aimed at young people. It has been said a few times that this incorrect, using the RI website as confirmation.

From the other posts though, it is clear that the Lectures, or rather JVT himself, did successfully reach a much wider age range. Twitter is evidence of the general audience it drew in.

I was aware that there were two cannonballs alegrias, but thank you for bringing it to the attention of others. In the interest of brevity I did not feel it necessary to list every “whoosh bang” lecture,

I have to say I never expected this thread to develop into such a heated discussion/debate/argument - call it what you will. I take the point that many in the past were more 'high brow' but I believe this year's choice of topic was vital for the education of the youngest generation about viruses and what we can do to survive them. Viruses aren't going away as one of the presenters pointed out. They are programmed to find a host and humans present a convenient one. I also believe this one is not done with us yet. If we are lucky we will stay a step ahead of it but, if a more dangerous one comes along, it really does become the survival of the fittest. Let's face it, each and every one of us alive today is here because our ancestors were the fittest, were the ones who survived and passed on to us the gene mutations to enable us to fight off past diseases. Some experts believe that something like the melting of the ice may throw up diseases from the past long since gone and to which we no longer have immunity. The world is a much smaller place than it was in the past when the population was smaller, moved about less, was capable of closing off villages and towns. Now we hear about incidents in a nanosecond but not fast enough to prevent the first spread because of faster travel and greater mixing.
I still think the lectures did what they set out to do, which was to educate the young and put to rest some of the inaccurate information out there. I liked that they showed how vaccines had got rid of, or contained, other viruses like smallpox and measles. I also liked that JVT had a good spread of both male and female experts and that he gave them all their status. I remember him introducing one of the female professors as the world expert in this field. There was also a good range of diversity. As for their delivery, they are probably more used to interacting with like minded adults and in fields where the 'all singing, all dancing' act is irrelevant. What I saw though was an engaged audience of young people who were hungry to know more about this topic and how they can survive the virus and I think they were sent away much better and more accurately informed.
I would like to thank you all for your contributions, even if it did become very heated. That is, after all, the cut and thrust of discussion and debate.