Reminder of two appearances

Just a reminder: I’ll be on National Public Radio San Francisco (KQED) at 9 a.m. Pacific Time today, discussing the March for Science with some of the organizers, some scientists who are dubious, and journalists. You can find the announcement and the livestream link here.

And, on May 24 at the Lisner Auditorium in Washington D.C., I’ll be in conversation with Richard Dawkins, followed by audience Q&A. This is a benefit for the Center for Inquiry of Washington, and, as usual in such events I’m participating without remuneration. I believe tickets are still available—at $29 each—here (there’s a $250 VIP package as well).

I want to talk more about evolution than about atheism, since this is the only stop on Richard’s four-city tour in which he converses with another scientist (everyone else is a satirist or comedian). BTW, at this venue there is no choice of seats, so if you want a good seat, get there when doors open at 6 pm (the event begins at 7 pm).

15 Comments

  1. Terry Sheldon
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Got my tickets for DC. Can’t wait!!

  2. jaxkayaker
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Are you actually in San Francisco, Jerry? Are you doing a talk anywhere, or having a public get-together?

    • Posted April 21, 2017 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      No, I’m using the special university phone and studio to do the show remotely.,

      • jaxkayaker
        Posted April 21, 2017 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        Pity. Thanks for answering.

  3. nay
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    I’ll be at work during your radio talk; is there any way to hear it later? (Warning: I am tech-illiterate, so I don’t know how to record off the live stream)(I’m constantly surprised that I can leave comments here)

  4. nay
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Then I hit Post without clicking the Notify Me box. Ha.

  5. Randy schenck
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I listened to the first hour of the radio show. Thought PCC achieved making his point quite well and clear. Some of the other comments and especially the call ins show justification for Prof. Coyne’s position. Too many agendas and opinions to keep this show on track.

  6. rickflick
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    I missed the show, but I noticed Ira Flatow had a similarly themed show later on. His show had 3 guests with scientific perspectives but was pretty uninteresting. I wonder if the Coyne show will be archived?

  7. Les Faby
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Within a couple of weekdays,the link for
    Jerry’s hour will have a play button added where you can playback the show. There will also be a download button as well.

  8. George
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    The audio should be up eventually at this link:
    https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2017/04/20/scientists-across-the-nation-trade-in-lab-coats-for-protest-signs/

    Reading the comments is interesting. I don’t think they agree with Jerry. This from Kevin Skipper:
    Jerry Coyne, it’s official. You’re in denial. Pure and simple. If you’re not familiar with the myriad ways in which the government and academics have colluded to support their racist and discriminatory policies with supposed nods to pseudoscientific data for support, chances are, your a pawn in the same thing today.

    I hear Chicago has a pretty interesting record on race and segregation. Would you say that the ecology and evolution departments at Chicago reflect the diversity of the city? Any scientific or historical reasons worth discussing?

    What’s the sense in fighting over who was being discriminated against in the 60’s. US history and its standing laws said it loud and clear. Of course, there were others who suffered besides Colored folks but it was well understood that we, as the enduring subjects of America’s most vicious bigotry, stood to lead the struggle. There was plenty of squabbling during the Civil Rights movement. Malcolm and Martin were considered two very different sides to a very big coin. Today, when new ‘interest groups’ pop up out of nowhere, the factionalism only increases.

    • Posted April 21, 2017 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      I think you picked out the one critical comment, so it’s not really kosher to say that “the comments don’t agree with Jerry” The vast majority of them have nothing to do with me.

      I myself pointed out the squabbling in the Civil Rights movement, which was hashed out outiosde of the public eye

      As for the diversity of my department not reflecting the diversity of the city, that is an implicit accusation that my field is racist. There are no black evolutionary biologists applying for our jobs or studentships, and yes, that may reflect the legacy of slavery, but not the racism of my department.

      That comment is ridiculous. But I would think that most commenters, like other people on the show, WOULD disagree with my take on the march. That’s fine, But the comment above is ludicrous.

    • rickflick
      Posted April 21, 2017 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      The audio is up now.

  9. Stephen Barnard
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    I listened up to the questions/comments. Jerry explained his nuanced position. I thought the woman who was defending the SF march was very well spoken, one of those hyperverbal people who effortlessly produce sensible, grammatical, complete sentences and paragraphs.

  10. Randy schenck
    Posted April 21, 2017 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Another way I would see it in my simplistic view is as follows: After this march activity is over, lets see if the Science part is remembered. If all the other social issues must be included, well, it has very little to nothing to do with science. The people who eventually decide what to do with many things achieved by scientist are not the scientists themselves. So is the march intended to be a support for science or is it going to be something else covering a wide range of social elements and past criticism of science. If the latter, I think they will accomplish very little.


%d bloggers like this: