BYU Science Speeches
I noticed at BYU Speeches, that you can sort by topic, so I decided to check out what 'science' speeches they have. It's pretty slim pickings; not all of the speeches are freely available (as html or mp3), and some of the talks are not really about science. Below are a few of the speeches I liked.
1. Discovering Truth (Eyring, Henry B.) This is probably the best of the 'spiritual' speeches. Many of these types of talks are built according to the formula of "secular learning is great and all, but here's what is really important." This talk treats both science and spirituality with (genuine, I think) respect.
2. Herpetology, Biodiversity, and Human Well-Being (Sites, Jack W.) This is a straight-up science talk--a rarity, unfortunately. The occasion appears to be his winning of the Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Faculty Award. Even without visuals, I liked it and thought it was worth listening to. (For some reason I'm thinking that Jack Sites is not LDS. Does anyone know?)
3. Exploding Stars, Expanding Universe (Moody, J. Ward) This is also fairly straightforward science. Since the introduction is by Merrill J. Bateman, my guess is that this was a "Forum" speech. (Those are campus speeches given in the slot of the weekly Devotional, but that are not focused on gospel living.)
4. Was Einstein Wrong? The Difference Between Things We Don't Know and Things We Can't Know. (Turley, R. Steven) This one is about quantum mechanics. It is a little difficult to follow without the visuals, especially during the thought experiments. Just as Lehi used the qualities of a valley to teach his sons how they should behave, toward the end of the talk some parallels are drawn between quantum mechanics and how we should live. (I think they are a little distracting, and listeners should beware the naturalistic fallacy.) Toward the beginning of the talk, he says that he likes science because nature is God's handiwork. I think it's great that he feels that way. Sometimes I get the feeling that perhaps such statements are almost an apology for why an LDS person would be interested in science--as though nature is only interesting insofar as it reflects God's greatness, but does not merit study in and of itself. Maybe that is one reason why Dr. Sites's talk was one of my favorites. It just assumes that reptiles are worth studying and discussing.

7 comments:
Check out the speech by Dennis Largey, "The Armour of Light". It is not overtly scientific, but I find it fascinating to think that there is much more to light than we understand. This is one of my favorite speeches, which I always considered somewhat scientific. It pales in comparison to your speeches. Back to studying Suzuki Circles for me...
Sites is Catholic.
"Maybe that is one reason why Dr. Sites's talk was one of my favorites. It just assumes that reptiles are worth studying and discussing."
You said it nicely. Unfortunately, there is a similar trend among those who call themselves scientists: now every NIH grant has to be framed in the context of drug discovery or disease treatment---no more pure science.
Matronne,
I had a look a the talk. Other than a small lesson on home electrical wiring, I don't see much science there; I don't think he's talking about photons.
BrianJ,
I thought of that too. Alas, we have to make use of buzzwords and bandwagons. Which is not to say the research is unworthy, but tight funding necessitates a little marketing.
Whatever... One man's science is another man's hobby.
"Whatever... One man's science is another man's hobby."
Which is why we have peer review: to insure that public research dollars are spent on good scientific questions and not---what you call---"hobbies." The problem today is that research projects are increasingly being selected and directed by unqualified individuals.
(Sorry, Jared*, I didn't mean to create a threadjack, but at least the root of both problems is the same misunderstanding of what science actually is.)
BrianJ,
Oh, don't worry about Matronne. That's the pseudonym my sister uses, and she's just giving me grief.
But I appreciate your defense of science.
Post a Comment