Podcasts about micrographia

What a lot of fun I had talking to Zena Hitz about Gulliver's Travels. As well as discussing Swift, slavery, genocide, rationality, Christianity, and science, Zena told me that good philosophy is like a box of cake mix and that a liberal education requires you to be freed of false expertise. I also took Zena on a detour to discuss Iris Murdoch, the Catherine Project, and modern philosophy. TRANSCRIPTHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Zena Hitz. Zena is a tutor at St. John's College. She is a philosopher, the author of Lost in Thought. She runs the Catherine Project. She's famous on Twitter. We don't know how she does it all. Zena, welcome.ZENA HITZ: Thank you, Henry. It's great to be here.OLIVER: And we're talking about Gulliver's Travels because it is 300 years since it was published, and it's a book that you love.HITZ: A book that I've loved for a long time.First Encounter with Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: So tell me, when did you first read it?HITZ: Well, it was an important moment for me. I was in high school, and I was admitted to a scholarship summer program which offered college courses at different campuses. There were some normal-looking college courses at normal-looking colleges. And then there was this course at St. John's called Science as Literature, Literature as Science. [laughs] It had this description that was just unbelievable. And I thought to myself, “This is the one, obviously the one to go to.”So I went, and we read books that no one in their right mind would assign to high school students now, and maybe not then. The fragments of Parmenides, Plato's Timaeus, selections from Aristotle's Physics, Gulliver's Travels. After reading a number of—preface to Ptolemy's Almagest, geocentric astronomy. And we read Gulliver's Travels after reading selections from Hooke's Micrographia, so the inventor of the microscope, and Galileo's Starry Messenger, which is one of the great first uses of the telescope to discover the nature of the moon and the satellites of Jupiter.So then we read Gulliver's Travels. We also read Emma and Flannery O'Connor and various other things. And one of the faculty who was running it said at one point, “Well, we thought we'd throw a bunch of things together and see what you could do, what you could make of it. We didn't actually have an idea of how these all fit together,” which I think was probably true.At any rate, I think I came to Gulliver's Travels thinking about these scientists who were looking at very large things and very small things, and thinking in general about the follies of human perception, whether that was shown in literature or philosophy or what have you, the ways in which human perception and knowledge don't work very well. And I think Swift is still one of the best people to—Gulliver's Travels is still one of the best books about that because it's in the mode of a travel diary, an eyewitness account.Gulliver is trained as a surgeon, by his own account. He at one point says he was a bit of a projector in his younger days, someone who undertook scientific projects. And he's a terrible observer, the worst imaginable observer, and Swift so brilliantly lets us see through his eyes, lets us see all the things he doesn't see. And I think it's not just about seeing and knowing. It has a very profound, I think, moral and political set of commitments. So it's a very humane book. It's social criticism, but from a point of view of a very deep humanity. So I've always loved the book for these reasons since then.I came back to it more recently because it is part of the curriculum at St. John's. So when I came back to teach there, I began to reread it. The other experience I had was that I wrote a long essay on it when I was an undergraduate. So those are my—I'm not any kind of expert. My knowledge of the historical context of the book is limited. It's not zero, but it's limited. But I have always loved it as an account of human understanding and its failures and the way that might impact how we live and how happy we can be.The Houyhnhnm ProblemOLIVER: Have you changed how you think about it as you've taught it?HITZ: I have not really changed the way I think about it. It gets more—like all of these books, the more you read them, the more comes out of them, the more details come up. Hilarious. The more jokes you get, the more . . .I think the one more recent insight I had was, I hadn't understood the full horror of the Houyhnhnms in the last book until relatively recently. I think that took me some time to really take on. It's one of the cases where Gulliver's misperceptions are a bit harder to see, and I think many readers just assume that Swift is endorsing the praise of the Houyhnhnms in some sense or other.OLIVER: There are some very serious critics in the past who have called them Swift's ideal beings. Which at this point in history seems unthinkable, but it has been a belief among serious readers.HITZ: Yes, yes. And also common among students. Yes, it's absolutely one of the wrongest opinions you could have about anything, I think.OLIVER: Why does Swift allow us to make that mistake? Are we bad readers out of the context, or has he made too good a job of his diversions and concealments and ironies?HITZ: That's a great question, and I'll just take a stab at it. I think that he has hit on a mode of misperception which is very deep to us, and it's something that we're much more guilty of. We could imagine that if we were in a place where everyone was small or everyone was large, we might make mistakes like Gulliver makes. But we all live, I think, in communities that are a bit like the Houyhnhnms. And so we are all very subject to these kinds of deceptions, and I think that's how he gets us.That's not to really excuse the bad readings because, you know, Gulliver does leave the land of the Houyhnhnms with a boat made out of human skin, which should—I think that moment should make you realize, if you haven't yet, that something is very seriously wrong with Gulliver. Gulliver has been kind of destroyed as a person by his travels, and especially by this last trip. But if you pass over that little detail, maybe you think, “Oh, wow, he found some very simple beings.”OLIVER: Well, there's also the great council where they debate the genocide of the Yahoos.HITZ: [laughs] Yes.OLIVER: And it directly contradicts several things Gulliver has come to believe about the Houyhnhnms, about the Yahoos, and about himself. And he's completely unaware of these contradictions and so in awe of the Houyhnhnms that he doesn't quite understand, I think, that he's accounting a genocide.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: Even though he uses a phrase from Genesis that's very unmistakable. It's a sort of remarkable moment of—particularly to us, having had the 20th century. I think that's why Swift came back into favor in a way, because people used to say, Swift's unbearable view of human nature . . .This is a great bit in Boswell's Life of Johnson where, when they're traveling through Scotland, they're with a lady, and she says to Johnson, “Is any man naturally good?” And Johnson says, “No, no more than a wolf.” And Boswell says, “Well, sir, what about ladies?” And Johnson says, “God, no, absolutely not.” And this woman says, “Oh my God, this is worse than Swift,” utterly horrific view of human nature.But of course, we can actually say, did he go far enough? [laughter] I mean, Swift clearly understands something very real and deep. The council of genocide is horrifyingly familiar to us. And I think that's much to Swift's credit that he can see that, and to show that Gulliver would blind himself to it. And people still blind themselves to it, right?HITZ: That's right. And I wonder—you would know more about this than me because it is a bit of a historical question, but my understanding is that quite a lot of the savagery, the worst parts of rule over men that we see in Gulliver's Travels are pictures of Ireland in the 17th, 18th centuries. And I wonder if that took some time to reveal itself to the British, and in some ways it's still not really as known as it might be. We think of the colonial project as being something that was directed at India and Africa—OLIVER: Faraway countries.HITZ: —faraway countries where people looked really different. And we're not as familiar with the kinds of things that were done to the cuddly Irish with their nice music, and who we don't think of as being people that you would savagely oppress like that. So I think—OLIVER: So, I think partly the English are not interested in their own history in the way that they are expected to be. And partly the English interest in Irish history has become very focused on the more recent events. And it's very hard to get back past that. And it all becomes very complicated, and it's a sort of different country. So there's some of that, but I think generally we don't want to know what we did, yes.HITZ: Well, and I think in anglophone countries in general, there's going to be a history of something like that. To attribute it to the British is not to say that—I mean, Americans have chattel slavery and the genocide of the natives, and the Australians have their own situation. All of the anglophone countries have something like this on their conscience.I think that obscures the meaning of that final book. I think we don't recognize—and that's really to Swift's credit, to have a social critique that is so real and so deep that you may not even recognize yourself in the picture.Slavery in Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: Yes. When I read it again—I read it as an undergraduate, but I really was actually more interested in the other parts of Swift's work. And I thought it was brilliant, and then I read it again. And it was more recently that—I didn't understand how I couldn't have seen it, but it's basically a book about slavery, as I come back to it.And in each of the books there is enslavement of a different sort. So, to begin with, Gulliver is the one being kept in a box or kept in a house, or he's chained up by the Lilliputians or Glumdalclitch.HITZ: Right. That's right.OLIVER: She's a very nice sort of master, as it were, [laughter] but he has that box that can be sealed, and the dwarf has him swiping at the wasps. And then the enslavement that the flying island has of the country below is like England and Ireland. And then in the final book, you know, the Houyhnhnms are whipping the Yahoos.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: The slavery thing gets worse and worse as the book goes on. And one of the things that's clever is that it's funny when Gulliver is enslaved, right? When the wasps are let out and he has to—and Swift sort of does that clever thing where he undermines things by making it a joke at the end. By the book of the Houyhnhnms, there is really very little humor. And the twist at the end is always dark.Gulliver can't see that—he can see that he's a bit like the Yahoos. But he can't see that they've been enslaved in the way that he—the farmer wanted to take him around the kingdom and show him off, and he says, “I couldn't possibly have had children in that condition because I couldn't have it on my conscience that I had begotten a slave, someone born into slavery. I couldn't do that.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Then he's in the Houyhnhnms and he can't—it's quite remarkable.HITZ: [laughs] Yes. I don't think it's quite true that in the end there's no humor. I read it with some Catherine Project group a couple of years ago, and one of the readers pointed out that it's not obvious Gulliver isn't leaving his home and sitting out in the ocean and always landing on England every single time; just every time, he lands there.And there's something hilarious about an Englishman that discovers a place where there's all horses, [laughter] and his love of horses overwhelms him, and he becomes persuaded that they're the only rational beings that there are. I mean, that is funny.OLIVER: Yes, I agree. There's a lot of irony and stuff. But I think it's in Lilliput when he describes their manner of writing. And he says they don't write from left to right as we do in England, or from right to left, or up-down like the Chinese, but from one corner to the other, as the ladies do in England. This is very funny, dry humor, and that sort of thing is gone. And the things that surprise you at the end of a sentence or a paragraph are more like, “Oh, and of course I used Yahoo skin to cover the boat.” And you're like, oh my God, this is not a joke anymore.You know, in A Modest Proposal, he makes real humor out of those kind of horrors. And with the Houyhnhnms, I think he actually refuses the joke to make you feel the disgust, in a way.HITZ: Yes, that might be right. That might be right.Swift and PhilosophyOLIVER: What do you think about the idea that the Houyhnhnms are drawn from the Phaedrus and Socrates's idea of the soul with the two horses? And there's the good, rational horse and the vulgar, passionate horse, and the Yahoos are the other horse. You see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Is Swift showing us the two sides, and Gulliver's mistake is to prefer the one and not the—HITZ: Right, I think I have heard something like this before. I'm a bit skeptical. Swift doesn't strike me as someone who uses philosophy in quite that way. I think he's much more interested in Gulliver's—the Houyhnhnms' self-deception about the kinds of beings they are. They do not say “the thing which is not,” yet Gulliver's master hides from him this conversation about the genocide for quite some time. And maybe we don't know if he tells him quite the whole truth about it. So there's—OLIVER: And he also conceals the fact that the others don't like Gulliver because he's a partial—a reasonable Yahoo, as it were.HITZ: Right. So their self-deception, Gulliver's being taken in by their self-deception, the ways in which they—this is one of the ways that I think it's profound about the nature of slavery. And to cheer us all up, I'll make a Holocaust analogy, as you also did.When I was traveling in Germany some years ago, in one of their Holocaust museums, there was an image from a Nazi-era German newspaper of Jewish people living in complete squalor in the ghetto. And of course, they had forced them into squalor. But somehow they forced them into squalor, and then this reinforces the sense that they're these rat-like beings.And there's something very similar that the Houyhnhnms do to the Yahoos. They force them into this animal state, and then they say, “Oh God, look, these people are disgusting. They just don't know how to act.” That seems to me the kind of level at which Swift is working. He is interested in the nature of a human being, but not in the abstract Platonic sense, I don't think.He strikes me as someone who believes in common sense, common decency, basic freedom, and basic use of reason. And he finds in his time that there's distorting teachings, distorting ways of behavior that have gotten people far off track. To me, that's what it feels like it comes from. It doesn't feel like Plato is in the background to me.OLIVER: Is there an extent to which, though, it's a work of sort of anti-philosophy? As you say, Swift, he likes common sense. He likes ordinary reason, and he likes what he would call the revealed truth of Christianity. So he talks, in his sermons about people, it comes to you from God like a light. It's revealed to you. And he doesn't like this idea that the philosophers can work it all out.And in a way, that's the same sort of mistake that the scientists think they can discover all this stuff, and they go in these crazy ways. And the Houyhnhnms are a bit like that. If you had philosopher-kings, they would end up being perverted examples of rationality because they're ignoring the—so do you think it's anti-philosophy in a way? The book is saying, “No, no, I don't want philosophers”?Criticizing Elite Intellectual CultureHITZ: That's definitely a plausible reading. But it's hard to tell whether it's anti-philosophy or anti a particular style of thinking. It's worth pointing out, in that light, that Gulliver, when he arrives in the land of the Houyhnhnms, before he even meets a horse, he sees a Yahoo who, from what I can tell from the text, is trying to wave at him and say hello, who recognizes him. And he's horrified. He sees him instantly as a monster.So I think immediately upon landing, he sees the Yahoos as monstrous, and that tells me that he must already be off kilter. So he's not just corrupted by the Houyhnhnms; he's been somehow led off track, away from the capacity to recognize fellow human beings before that.And he's come from this—the third book is all about various kinds of inquiry, scientific endeavors, practical endeavors, talking to the greats of the past, necromancy, and various kinds of inquiry into wisdom or things like wisdom. And somehow that's the thing that seems to push him to the point where he can no longer tell what a human being is.OLIVER: One of my favorite parts is when he's with the wizards, and he asks to be shown Homer and Aristotle and all their commentators. And he says that there were vast rooms full of these commentators, endless numbers of them. But Homer and Aristotle didn't recognize any of them because they were all so ashamed of the terrible things they'd said about these great men's works that they kept themselves forever in a different part of the underworld. They couldn't bear the shame of being revealed to having told lies and said second-rate things.It's very, very funny. And I think that's another sort of angle on which the book says, “You're so tempted to make a comment and have an idea and be a philosopher, and you should just accept the revealed truth of what is known. Just stop it. Just stop it.” [laughter]HITZ: Well, I suppose maybe I would also put it this way, that Swift sees the condition of 18th-century Ireland, which is quite poor, very bad. And it's ruled in a savage way by the English, who have a quite flourishing intellectual culture, as it happens, at this time.So I think what he might be is not a critic of philosophy so much as a critic of intellectual culture. Because intellectual culture seems to not only not help with existential concerns like slavery and oppression and savage poverty, but even serves to mask and hide and create illusions behind it.So that's, I guess, how it strikes me, as a book that's hostile to what you'd now call elite intellectual culture. And I don't know how fundamental that critique is, in light of its inability to solve problems for real human beings or to obscure the causes of what's going on with real human beings.OLIVER: I think it's quite fundamental because outside of Gulliver's—I think this comes into Gulliver's Travels, but what he might have said more explicitly elsewhere is, there are people starving in the streets of Dublin. And we've got corrupt politicians and intellectuals saying all these things, but you know, here she is starving. You don't need to work that out. [laughter] There's no question—the reveal—just be a Christian and, like, for goodness' sake . . .HITZ: Yes.OLIVER: And when, for example, he talks to the king of Brobdingnag, and there's that wonderful satire of the English government and everything. And he says, “Those people understood mathematics and poetry and whatever, but I could never drive into their head any sense of the abstract or any of these speculative—they simply didn't know what that was. They didn't know what I was saying.” [laughter]And so in a way, his ideal government is anti-philosophical because it would just look at the human problem in front of it. It wouldn't do speculative science. It wouldn't think of itself as rational, all this Platonic stuff. It would just—she's in rags, she has bare feet, you know?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: What do we need a philosopher-king? Like, what are you talking about?HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: The priest understands this because he's there in the city doing it. And is there something of that in the book, that constant resistance of the cleverness of people who cannot see daily life?HITZ: I think that's absolutely true, and I think it's probably one of the things I love about the book, because I think this somehow gets to something in my own heart. Even though I'm a professional intellectual—I have been my whole life—the distance between the concerns of professional intellectuals and the concerns of living, real people in various parts of the world is very large.And it's even worse when, as it was when I was coming up in grad school, there's a ton of explicit concern and various operations underway to improve life for others, which have zero connection with anything that anyone actually does. So I think the Laputans, which is the beginning of the third book, when Gulliver—OLIVER: The flying island.HITZ: Yes, when Gulliver visits the people on the flying island, who have one eye towards the heavens and one eye pointed inward. And they study music and mathematics, and they live in a giant flying saucer, which has the—OLIVER: And the flappers.HITZ: That's right. [laughter] When someone needs to talk to them, someone flaps their ears so that they pay attention. And their wives all run off with working people because they can't bear to be treated the way they are by men like this. And the flying saucer is not just distant. It also has the power to crush the towns underneath it if it judges them to be rebellious.This image will stick with you for the rest of your life. I mean, it's absolutely perfect, and the perfect image of bad government of a kind when intellectual culture is prized. And it's hinted early on in the book in Lilliput, when the rulers in Lilliput have to do these elaborate dances with ropes.OLIVER: Oh, with the king and the chief minister hold the pole, funny angles, and if you get under it, you get a green ribbon or a red ribbon.HITZ: Exactly. [laughter] And they have these athletic contests of grace and various colored ribbons, and that determine how far you get in the halls of power.OLIVER: Yes. Are you a cabinet minister or a junior minister? Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly. So there, it's all just a funny joke. But it develops, I think, into the Laputans, people who have kinds of expertise that are actually hostile to them doing any kind of humane governing. So yes, that seems right to me.Christianity in GulliverOLIVER: To what extent is it a Christian book?HITZ: That's an interesting question. I've never found a strong Christian element in it myself. There are satires of religious wars, both in Lilliput, where Lilliput's at war with its neighboring city. Oh, wait a second, there's two different disputes in Lilliput. One is about what side you cut your egg on.OLIVER: There are the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians,HITZ: Right. And then there's also one about heel size. So there's two different kinds of disputes.OLIVER: With the marvelous image that the king is a Short-Heeler. But they think that the heir to the throne might be favorable to the High-Heelers because he has one heel slightly higher than the other, and he walks with a wobbly gait.HITZ: [laughs] That's right. This, again, in Lilliput is just utterly hilarious, outrageous, very silly, obviously a parody of religious wars between different kinds of Christians. But it resurfaces towards the end. It's the Houyhnhnms, where he talks to the Master Horse—OLIVER: And the horse sort of pretends to this great rationality, simply can't understand that men would kill each other over the question of whether flesh is bread or bread is flesh.HITZ: That's right. That's right. That's right. So there's definitely disparaging remarks about religious wars. And as you're talking about it, where along with Swift's praise of common sense, there's a kind of basic Christian morality, which is that the poor and the suffering need attention. That all strikes me as Christian. Apart from that, I'm not sure. If you have a religious take, I'd be interested to hear it.OLIVER: I find it very interesting that Swift had quite strict beliefs. He was not in favor of Catholics. He thought Dissenters should be tolerated, but he wanted the Test Act. He was very particular about all these things. And in his other works, he's quite direct about that. But in this book, he achieves a kind of high ambivalence. And he's not a Little-Ender or a Big-Ender.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: And he says the religious text on which this is based simply says that you must break the egg at the most convenient end.HITZ: [laughs] That's right.OLIVER: Now, of course, in reality, he's a Little-Ender, and he's very committed to the Reformation, and he thinks it's all terrible that they're not. And it's interesting that someone with such angry, insistent beliefs on the Anglican Church would take this ambivalent position.And he satirizes so much. But the anti-slavery stuff, the description of the Laputans bringing the island down, and then he says, “I've never seen so much want and misery, and there's a wild look in their eyes, and they're wearing rags.” I mean, this is Dublin, right? This is just, along with the slavery, this basic Christian concern for the oppressed, the poor, the suffering.HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And so I don't quite know. It's almost like the book is saying, again with this anti-intellectual thing, all these doctrinal disputes and which church this and who believes that. And here we have slaves and poor people and beggars and starving people.HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Christianity should deal with that first. So is the implicit criticism of his fellow Christians, in a way, that they're more interested in these disputes than in the fact that there are enslaved people and suffering people and—you see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And Gulliver—the Houyhnhnms are highly rational but not Christian, which is a significant omission. And by the end, are you supposed to wonder if Gulliver actually isn't very much of a Christian? Because he can see this suffering and not respond to it at all.HITZ: Right, when maybe the—is the best person in the book the King of Brobdingnag? Does that seem right? The person with the—at least who says the best things?OLIVER: He says the best things. I think the best person is Glumdalclitch. She shows real charity and real love towards him.HITZ: What about the Houyhnhnm, the one who likes him, who says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo”? It's tear-jerking—OLIVER: Oh, the sorrel nag.HITZ: The sorrel nag. I can literally weep at that moment when she says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo.”OLIVER: That's true. That's true. She and Glumdalclitch are maybe more similar characters. Yes, yes, yes.HITZ: They're similar characters. Okay.OLIVER: And they have that basic, you don't need to call it Christian. You don't need—it doesn't need theology.HITZ: Humane. I would call it humane. Yes.OLIVER: They have that basic love of their fellow. You know, Glumdalclitch doesn't say, “Oh, how amusing this little man is, or how entertaining, or I can make—” She says, “He must be cared for. He looks a bit like me. He must be cared for.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: And the sorrel nag, again, has the love of the fellow creature.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: So I think Swift might be bringing in this, what he thinks of as the revealed truth of Christianity. Like, you shouldn't need telling, you shouldn't need to argue. It's there.HITZ: Right. This is just me making things up, which is what I'm here for. We're podcasting. Yes.OLIVER: Yes, of course. Also, is that not what the philosophers would do? That's what Swift would say.HITZ: But if I was going to make something up, what I would say is something like this: that Swift to me, from the testimony of Gulliver's Travels, which is the book of his I really know the best. I don't know much about the rest of it. He has a level of self-awareness and sophistication. So, he knows that that religious difference is being used as a pretext. He knows that it is obscuring the suffering of these people. So, for the purposes of the book, he says, “Look, if you're a smart person, if you're a smart ruler, if you're an actually humane, intelligent, commonsensical ruler, you know that the fact that they have the wrong religious views is not a reason for them to be enslaved and oppressed and starved.” So that would be my suspicion.And that's why I think, to me, the religion is so light, because it's not really a religious problem. It's actually just a human problem and a political problem that is, how do you run your country so that these subject peoples are allowed to be free and develop themselves and be full human beings? That would be my made-up guess.Students' Views of GulliverOLIVER: What do undergraduates think? What is it that they find interesting in the book, and what do they like or dislike?HITZ: It's been a couple of years. I think they like this idea that—we all think travel is very broadening, a great way to think about the world. You know, you can learn so much about one's fellow human beings. And whatever else is going on in Gulliver's Travels, travel does not necessarily produce enlightenment.So I think they like the attention to the ways in which, even when we are trying to learn, we fail to learn. And the ways in which structures of learning, like traveling or studying science, might actually make you worse and not better, things like that. But it's not a book—I think it's fair to say it's not one of the favorite books of the undergraduates.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: I think they find it a little bit distant, and I'm not sure why that is.OLIVER: Is it because it sort of looks like a novel, but it's not what we have come to expect a novel to be? And it sort of has that—HITZ: I think that's right.OLIVER: The pre–Jane Austen novel is kind of weird to us now.HITZ: Well, they love Don Quixote.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: And that is a challenge of a similar kind. It's a novel which doesn't quite read like a novel, and the humor is kind of old. I mean, it's also true—undergraduates, in my experience, in general—I hope they'll forgive me for saying this on a podcast—they're not always good at comedy. They tend to think that serious things must be tragic.OLIVER: You can't get an A by making a joke.HITZ: Well, more that they have a sense that an intellectual life is something serious. It's serious.OLIVER: Oh, yes. Okay. And the syllabus slightly reinforces that, doesn't it?HITZ: Well, it's sort of self-reinforcing because we used to read more Aristophanes. We used to read Rabelais.OLIVER: If you do Shakespeare, it'll be the tragedies.HITZ: No, no, we do Shakespeare comedies.OLIVER: Oh, you do? Okay.HITZ: Yes. We have As You Like It and The Tempest. And do we have more tragedies? Maybe one more tragedy than comedy, but not a terrible imbalance.OLIVER: Well, that's good.HITZ: It's not Shakespeare-type comedy that's—maybe, correct me if I'm wrong, a Shakespeare comedy is something that ends in a marriage, more or less.OLIVER: More or less.HITZ: It's things that are funny—they don't necessarily think that humor is a way of thinking.OLIVER: Do they struggle with irony?HITZ: No, not usually. As long as it's serious irony, Anyway, I'm not sure why. I think I'm making things—I'm going too far out of the grounds for drawing conclusions.Favorite Parts of the BookOLIVER: Sure. Do you have a favorite passage?HITZ: One of my favorites is the part—is it Balnibarbi where they have people who try to speak with objects?OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes.HITZ: And they have to carry around wagons full of things because they never know what you might want to talk about. [laughter] That's so weird. Because I think I spent a lot of time studying with philosophers, there's a bit of—something's on the nose about this.OLIVER: Yes.HITZ: You know, it's like, “No, you've got to say exactly—no, that's too imprecise. You have to say exactly what you mean.” Bernard Williams, the great philosopher, has something complaining about how contemporary philosophers are very controlling of their readers. They don't want anyone to make the slightest mistake about what they mean by a particular word. That's how the people who speak by objects strike me.OLIVER: Do you think that is a problem of contemporary philosophy?HITZ: Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely. Yes. The way Williams puts it is that when you write something, it should be like a cake mix, and the reader should be able to put their own egg and bake the cake themselves.OLIVER: Oh, I see. You mean like a box of mix, yes.HITZ: Yes, yes, exactly. It's like a box of cake mix. Whereas making the cake painstakingly and force-feeding it bite by bite to the reader is not actually an—OLIVER: Telling them how it tastes.HITZ: Telling them how it tastes is not an educational endeavor.OLIVER: When does this become too dominant in philosophy?HITZ: It's a feature of 20th-century analytic philosophy to be very careful with the meanings of words. And it's by no means universal; it's just a natural vice to the territory.Iris MurdochOLIVER: Is this a problem for someone like Iris Murdoch, or is it more the A. J. Ayer type?HITZ: No, it's the A. J. Ayer type, not Iris Murdoch. No, Iris Murdoch is heterodox outside of the—OLIVER: Do you like her philosophy?HITZ: I do, yes.OLIVER: What do you like about it? Platonic?HITZ: Now, see, I came here to talk about Swift. [laughter]OLIVER: I know, but you made such a good point about the satire of philosophers.HITZ: I like her writing for a more general educated audience, her not making assumptions about the philosophical training of her readers, and her use of Plato for sure, which is quite interesting and creative. She sort of ingests Plato and does something with it that I think is very interesting.OLIVER: Is she properly appreciated as a Platonist, or do you think there's more attention to be paid?HITZ: There's probably more attention to be paid, but she gets some attention. She gets some attention. I also don't think it was particularly helpful, these two books that came out a couple of years ago about Murdoch, Foot, Midgley, and Anscombe.OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes. I only read one of those. It was quite good.HITZ: It might be quite good, but those four women are quite different from one another. So it's an example of where attention to identity could obscure as much as it—OLIVER: Well, one of the books was more about the ideas—they were both obviously about the ideas—and one of them was more about the fact that they were together in Oxford. And that they benefited from hanging out, talking, doing different sorts of work, sleeping with each other's husbands, et cetera.HITZ: Yes, all the good stuff.OLIVER: And from the more sociological point of view, it was very interesting to see that, actually, a lot of what Murdoch did was bound up with her friendships and relationships, in that the argument basically is, A. J. Ayer and the others get sent away because of the war. So these four women are actually—they've been banned from this seminar and told they're not allowed.Well, now they can sit around and do what they want to do. And it worked, and they all produced very interesting things. So from that point of view, I think it was—but I agree with you, Elizabeth Anscombe and Iris Murdoch are not the same. [laughter]HITZ: Not even particularly similar. I also feel like I've read enough of Murdoch's novels to have a sense of what the sociological situation was like.OLIVER: You like the novels?HITZ: I do like them, yes.OLIVER: Do you have favorites?HITZ: I can't remember the name of my favorite because I haven't read them for years. It's one of the things I read years ago, the one—I'd remember it if I saw the title. There's an LSD trip at the beginning of it.OLIVER: Oh, The Good Apprentice. I love that book.HITZ: The Good Apprentice, yes. I think that was my favorite. But I never fell in love with it. I just liked it, and I found it interesting, and I found the sociology interesting. Okay, this is what academics at this time period were doing.What to Pair with SwiftOLIVER: We got diverted.HITZ: “We” got diverted. [laughs]OLIVER: We did. If Swift is on a great books syllabus, what is it good to pair him with? If people are reading Swift, on or off a syllabus, do you think there are other—Hooker, you said, which I think would be interesting.HITZ: No, Hooke. It's Hooke.OLIVER: Hooke. Hooke. That's a very good point.HITZ: The guy who wrote Micrographia, who has the enormous picture of the flea.OLIVER: Yes, yes, yes. So that would be good. But any other? Is it worth reading Plato alongside him?HITZ: Well, I like to—he's on the list for something we called Life of the Mind Seminar at Catherine Project, which is our introduction to the life of the mind.OLIVER: And just to tell people, the Catherine Project—this is not a university. Anyone can join a seminar.HITZ: That's right. It's an open online readers community. Consists of small, high-quality conversations, mostly on Zoom, some in person.OLIVER: You could be some kid, an accountant, a dentist, whatever, and you come and do a—you've got a PhD running a seminar, and you get that experience.HITZ: Right. Some of them are peer led, so they're not necessarily PhDs running them. The reading groups are not necessarily run by PhDs. But the core program in which the Life of the Mind Seminar is—either a PhD or an ABD [all but degree] or someone with some academic experience is usually leading that. We have it there, and we have it there with a set of books that are meant to disorient rather than to orient.So one of the difficulties with reading great books with more or less random selections of adults is that people feel uncertain, out of place. And they bring expertise, real or fake, to the table, which makes it very difficult to have a conversation. It's usually fake expertise, for what it's worth.OLIVER: Give us an example of what you mean by fake expertise.HITZ: Well, so someone will have—we'll be, say, reading Hamlet. Someone will have taken a class on Shakespeare in college, and they'll say, “Actually, we're asking this question. But what I learned, my professor told me, is that Hamlet actually symbolizes—he has an Oedipus complex and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then this is what this means, and this is what that means.” And then your conversation's over, because you need to focus just on the text that's shared between the—OLIVER: It's not a crossword puzzle.HITZ: Exactly. It's not a crossword puzzle, and it's not something where—or the other—people often, again, they feel a bit on their back feet. So they'll google a bunch of stuff about the author, and they'll start tossing out random facts about the book or about the author, about the context. And again, you don't get really into the meat of the book that way.So, Gulliver's Travels is there to help us think about ways in which we might not be expert in things we're expert. Ways in which we might think we understand something and not understand it. And ways in which people who, with every appearance of seriousness and scientific principle, can just say unbelievably stupid things.So it's a very, very good book for that, where in that sense, it's I think very good for any liberal education program. It's liberating that way. One of the things we need to be liberated from is false expertise.OLIVER: You're talking really about these secondhand opinions that you haven't interrogated and come to understand yourself.HITZ: Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly.OLIVER: This is what Mill says. Everything is new to someone, and the real genius is that you find it out.HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: You don't get taught it. Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly, exactly. So real learning is things you find for yourself. Anyway, that's what I like it with. As for pairing it, yes, I think it would just depend on what you were—I don't have a clear thought about that. I think it'd be good to pair it with Galileo's Starry Messenger and preface to Hooke's Micrographia.But you could also pair it with Emma. Be quite good, actually, because Emma is also about someone who really doesn't know what they're doing and has no idea. Thinks they know what's going on; they really have no idea what's going on.OLIVER: Yes. Hamlet as well, in fact.HITZ: I guess so. Does he not know what's going on?OLIVER: Who's diverting now? [laughter] Well, there's an interesting question, isn't there, about whether Hamlet has legitimate doubts. So he says, “This ghost could be a demon. I should be careful. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm going to pretend to be mad. I'm going to find out.” Or whether he just doesn't want to see the truth in front of him, and he quote-unquote “delays” because of that. I don't know if you have a view.HITZ: I don't think he's deluded. I think the problem is something different, but I haven't thought enough about it recently to know what his volitional obstacle is. But I don't think he's deluded. I think he sees what's going on, but there's something about acting that doesn't work for him.OLIVER: An internal—HITZ: Something internal. Something internal. In a way, I find the play very hard. I don't know what, for instance, what does that obstacle have to do with Ophelia? What's going on with that? Anyway, he's very mysterious, but I don't—yes, that'd be my sense, is that he's not—OLIVER: Do you buy this idea that he's a nihilist?HITZ: No, although he's definitely faced with something like nihilism. He has to look at it. And of course, the play does end with everyone dead, [laughs] so it's not obvious that he's wrong.Sympathy for GulliverOLIVER: This question hangs over Gulliver as well. Is the problem by the end that he's basically become a nihilist? His response to the Yahoos is to deny meaning, deny the possibility of meaning, to shut himself away.HITZ: He is a true misanthrope. He hates human beings and refuses to interact with them and in that sense, in some way, removes himself from any further mistakes. In another way, the mistake that he's in is so massive that that hardly seems like a consolation. But yes, he's definitely stuck, and he's stuck in a place where who he is—because he's a human being. We have to remember that.So he's in a place of total self-hatred and the hatred of his neighbor, what you'd call from the Christian perspective a total loss of charity. Is that nihilist? I don't know, but it's definitely bad. It's not a good state to be in. Maybe I don't know what you mean by nihilism exactly.OLIVER: Are we supposed to disapprove of him at the end or sympathize with him?HITZ: Disapprove, I think.OLIVER: Yes? You don't feel sorry for him?HITZ: I do a bit.OLIVER: But not much.HITZ: Well, should I?OLIVER: I have come to believe—yes, this is what I've come to feel in subsequent readings, is that Gulliver, as you say, is very mistaken. He thinks he understands things that he does not understand. He has the sort of pretense of rationality, but he lacks any sort of meta rationality to see what his limits are.And he becomes, therefore—he doesn't advocate genocide, and he doesn't take any pleasure in using Yahoo skin, but he's just completely null to it. There's a sort of void there where human feeling ought to be. And it's tragic for him. It's a tragic ending that he is so isolated. And we can't sympathize with him, as it were, but we can feel sort of awful that he's shriveled into this state rather than judging or blame.I think one of the persistent themes of the book is, as I say, this kind of basic love of fellow creature, the Glumdalclitch or the sorrel. And if you take that from the book, you will wish you could bring Gulliver back.HITZ: Right. What you're saying reminds me that there is an interesting parallel in Plato's dialogues that I hadn't thought of before, Plato's Parmenides, which is perhaps the most difficult Plato's dialogue. So it's a conversation between young Socrates and the philosopher Parmenides. The first third of it is relatively clear, some arguments against what people think of as Plato's theory of forms.Then there's an extensive, insane dialectical process where various theses about the connection between being and oneness are both argued for and then refuted, and argued for and then refuted, pages and pages and pages and pages of it. So this seems to be—it's Parmenides and Zeno who are running Socrates through this ringer.And the person at the very beginning of the dialogue who they have to go find, to tell him the story of how Socrates met Parmenides, used to study philosophy. But now he just trains horses. [laughs] One of my teachers pointed this out to me, and I've never been able to get over it, that he spent this time doing philosophy, and he's like, “You know what? I'm going to work with horses for the rest of my life. If I never hear another human voice, that's fine with me.”So I think that is an interesting parallel. And I think it is not really that uncommon to see people who are totally disillusioned with relating to humans, who then relate to animals instead, like they devote themselves to animals.OLIVER: But on that reading, it might be a disillusionment with philosophical humanity. It might be philosophy that's killed Gulliver's human feeling.HITZ: That's right. Well, I think that's one possibility, one very strong possibility. That's why I think the Houyhnhnms come after the Laputans. Going to the furthest reaches of his intellectual interests just destroys his humanity.But it doesn't seem like exhaustion in the same way that whoever, I can't remember his name, the character who relates the Parmenides, where you just think he must be exhausted from having heard more than one conversation like this. [laughter] And just in the stable with the horses eating oats, I mean, it's just delightful. It's just so peaceful, you know?OLIVER: Bucolic, pastoral, yes.HITZ: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Maybe you're right that we should be more sympathetic to someone in that situation.OLIVER: Well, next time you read it, you can tell me if you change your mind.HITZ: All right. I will tell you if I change my mind.OLIVER: Very good. Zena Hitz, thank you very much.HITZ: Thank you very much, Henry Oliver. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

Episode #185 of the Last Call Trivia Podcast begins with a round of general knowledge questions. Then, prepare to cite your sources for a theme round of Reference Materials Trivia!Round OneThe game starts with a Cartoons Trivia question that asks the Team to name the PBS show for which Ziggy Marley, son of reggae legend Bob Marley, recorded the theme song.Next, we have a Fashion Trivia question about a style of collar that takes its name from a famous character.The first round concludes with a History Trivia question about an influential figure and activist.Bonus QuestionToday's Bonus Question is a follow-up to the History Trivia question from the first round.Round TwoDust off those encyclopedias, dictionaries, and phone books, because today's theme round is all about Reference Materials Trivia!The second round begins with a Books Trivia question about an annual reference book that claims to accurately predict the weather 80% to 85% of the time.Next, we have a Science Trivia question about a term coined by Robert Hook in his 1665 book, Micrographia.Round Two concludes with an Authors Trivia question that asks the Team to name the author who helped to revise William Strunk Jr.'s Elements of Style writing style book in 1959.Final QuestionWe've reached the Final Question of the game, and today's category of choice is Slogans. Who's hungry?For today's Final, the Trivia Team is asked to name the food brand that is missing from five famous slogans.Visit lastcalltrivia.com to learn more about hosting your own ultimate Trivia event!

Instead of molecules that absorb light based on their molecular orbitals, this episode talks of nanostructures and their materials that refract light based on interference of light waves. We start with Robert Hooke who described this process in his book Micrographia. We continue through Isaac Newton and Lord Rayleigh. We discuss Eli Yablonovitch's photonic crystals. We mention various kinds of natural structural colorants in the living and non-living worlds, from minerals to insects to bacteria to plants. Then we list several attempts to synthesize structural colorants, and why they might prove useful.Support the Show. Support my podcast at https://www.patreon.com/thehistoryofchemistry Tell me how your life relates to chemistry! E-mail me at steve@historyofchem.com Get my book, O Mg! How Chemistry Came to Be, from World Scientific Publishing, https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/12670#t=aboutBook

Der britische Universalgelehrte Robert Hooke veröffentlichte 1665 seine "Micrographia", ein Werk in dem er die Zeichnungen von unters Mikroskop gelegten Winzlingen - Flöhe, Läuse, Fliegen - überdimensional vergrößert veröffentlichte. Eine Sensation im 17. Jahrhundert. DFF-Ausstellungskuratorin Stefanie Plappert stellt das besondere Werk im Podcastgespräch mit Frauke Haß vor. Es stammt aus der Sammlung Werner Nekes, die das DFF zusammen mit zwei weiteren Institutionen vor einiger Zeit übernommen hat. Mehr zur Sammlung Nekes erfahrt Ihr in einem weiteren Podcast zum Thema: Podcast // Neu in der Dauerausstellung: das Wechselkabinett zur Sammlung Nekes - DFF.FILM

Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts haben die ersten Forscher Mikroskope gebaut - und kamen aus dem Staunen nicht mehr heraus: Alles, was ihnen vor die Linse kam, war neu und aufregend. «Es war eine gute Zeit, um Wissenschaftler zu sein», sagt Keith Moore, Archivar der Royal Society in London. Er meint die Zeit um 1660, als 12 Wissenschaftler in London sich zusammentaten und die Royal Society gründeten, die englische Wissenschaftsgesellschaft, die lange die wichtigste in ganz Europa bleiben sollte. Alles, was Forscher sich damals genauer anschauten war neu. Sie waren die ersten, die konsequent darauf achteten, ihr Wissen nur aus Experimenten zu ziehen, und sie misstrauten überkommenen Autoritäten. Und: Sie boten einer neuen Technik den Raum, den sie brauchte, um sich voll zu entfalten: Der Mikroskopie. Robert Hooke, erster Kurator der Royal Society, liess sich von Londoner Handwerkern ein Mikroskop bauen und füllte ein ganzes Buch mit detaillierten Zeichnungen von Läusen, Mohnsamen und Nähnadelspitzen. «Micrographia» war das erste populärwissenschaftliche Buch überhaupt und für seine Zeit extrem erfolgreich. Wenige Jahre später las das Buch Antoni von Leeuwenhoek im niederländischen Delft, war fasziniert, baute seine eigenen Mikroskope und wurde zum zweiten Pionier der Mikroskopie: Er war der erste der Bakterien sah, beschrieb wie Spermien schwimmen und untersuchte das Leben in Pfützen vor seiner Haustür. – Ein Ausflug in die Wissenschaftswelt vor fast 400 Jahren, und die Frage, warum das Forschen und Aufklären eigentlich genau damals derart Fahrt aufnahm. «Das erste Mal»: Sommerserie der SRF-Wissenschaftsredaktion, Folge 5/7.

Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts haben die ersten Forscher Mikroskope gebaut - und kamen aus dem Staunen nicht mehr heraus: Alles, was ihnen vor die Linse kam, war neu und aufregend. «Es war eine gute Zeit, um Wissenschaftler zu sein», sagt Keith Moore, Archivar der Royal Society in London. Er meint die Zeit um 1660, als 12 Wissenschaftler in London sich zusammentaten und die Royal Society gründeten, die englische Wissenschaftsgesellschaft, die lange die wichtigste in ganz Europa bleiben sollte. Alles, was Forscher sich damals genauer anschauten war neu. Sie waren die ersten, die konsequent darauf achteten, ihr Wissen nur aus Experimenten zu ziehen, und sie misstrauten überkommenen Autoritäten. Und: Sie boten einer neuen Technik den Raum, den sie brauchte, um sich voll zu entfalten: Der Mikroskopie. Robert Hooke, erster Kurator der Royal Society, liess sich von Londoner Handwerkern ein Mikroskop bauen und füllte ein ganzes Buch mit detaillierten Zeichnungen von Läusen, Mohnsamen und Nähnadelspitzen. «Micrographia» war das erste populärwissenschaftliche Buch überhaupt und für seine Zeit extrem erfolgreich. Wenige Jahre später las das Buch Antoni von Leeuwenhoek im niederländischen Delft, war fasziniert, baute seine eigenen Mikroskope und wurde zum zweiten Pionier der Mikroskopie: Er war der erste der Bakterien sah, beschrieb wie Spermien schwimmen und untersuchte das Leben in Pfützen vor seiner Haustür. – Ein Ausflug in die Wissenschaftswelt vor fast 400 Jahren, und die Frage, warum das Forschen und Aufklären eigentlich genau damals derart Fahrt aufnahm. «Das erste Mal»: Sommerserie der SRF-Wissenschaftsredaktion, Folge 5/7. (Diese Folge wurde übernommen aus dem Podcast Feed «SRF Wissenschaftsmagazin», welcher ebenfalls von der SRF Wissenschaftsredaktion produziert wird.)

One of the early symptoms of Parkinson's is something called micrographia, which  is small handwriting. In this episode of the Parkinson's Association of San Diego Microcasts nurse practitioner Sherrie Gould gives us a little background on micrographia and some of your options to address it.https://parkinsonsassociation.org/

The multiple ways you can follow Julie's work:Please visit Julie Laurin's website: https://julielaurin.com/.Listen to her podcast Planet B612:  https://planetb612.fm/ .Watch Julie's latest microscopic find on her website A Tiny World: https://atinyworld.org/.You can also subscribe to her YouTube channel, reach her on Twitter (@PlanetB612fm and @atinyworldorg ) or Instagram. Book referred to in the podcast:You can learn more about Robert Hooke and his book Micrographia on.... drumroll... Wikipedia!Here is a review of Matt Ridley's book called Genome in the science journal called Nature: Genome review.Here's the website for the author Mary Roach: https://maryroach.net/.

How's your handwriting? Has it worsened over time? Mine has. In fact, that was one of my first clues that I may have Parkinson's. Small handwriting is a symptom of PD and it can be frustrating. It may also mean a decrease in hand strength. Legible handwriting is still very important skill and a source of pride. In this episode we speak with a person who is dedicated to helping PwP improve their handwriting through workshops and workbooks and a PwP who has taken the classes.  In a matter of a few weeks, people will be able to read your writing again.

Re-Post of Thursday 4/1/21 at 6:00 on radioparkies.com we have Chad Moir and Saba Shahid, a wonderful couple who've helped many Parkinson's patients with innovative programs through exercise (http://dopafit.com/) , creative movement and hand writing (https://creativeneurology.com/) Chad is the founder of Dopafit, a Parkinson's movement program based in Massachusetts but available throughout the world. Chad is certified in Rock Steady Boxing, PRW! Moves, and Delay the Disease. He continues his education by earning credits for Parkinson's Fitness through the International Sports Science Association Saba is the author of “Let's Combat Micrographia” an interactive workbook series, which helps those living with Parkinson's disease improve their symptom of micrographia (small handwriting). It is the only book of its kind and is currently sold worldwide in English and Spanish. The show starts off with a poem by Shane McPhee called "Tide"

Saba Shahid is the Chief Smiling Officer of The Art Cart, an internationally acclaimed organization that spread smiles through creativity and movement. In a short amount of time, Saba has developed her “Smile Through Art®” creativity and movement program and Let’s Combat Micrographia® program into an international offering that provides programming to thousands of patients teaching them how to live better with their symptoms instead of feeling burdened by them. The Art Cart travels to different communities worldwide and also provides programming virtually. Saba is the author of “Lets Combat Micrographia® book series. The Let’s Combat Micrographia® books and program is the only research-based program in the world that is proven to help improve small handwriting in as little as six weeks. Saba has created strategic partnerships with organizations, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies nationally that all join her in her mission to spread smiles through creativity and movement.Saba is the CEO and President of ACS Regulatory Consulting which provides regulatory expertise to medical device manufacturers across the globe. During her free time she loves spending time outdoors with her husband and son and is also studying to become a private pilot.Follow Knowledgeable Aging:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Knowledgeable-Aging-102638398162823Twitter: https://twitter.com/KnowledgeAgingInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/knowledgeableaging/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/knowledgeable-aging/?viewAsMember=trueSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/05OHF9FkmhzCO5PDsyGfGqNewsletter: https://www.knowledgeableaging.com/newsletter/

In this episode I speak with author Clive Thompson about the new literacies that technology and the internet present us with, speaking to an authentic audience and the importance of a formal K-12 education in all of it.EPISODE NOTES:Written by Clive Thompson Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better, Clive Thompson Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World, Clive Thompson On Gutenberg press - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press Micrographia: or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses. With Observations and Inquiries Thereupon, by Robert Hooke - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrographia Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereus_Nuncius https://www.amazon.ca/Sidereus-Nuncius-Sidereal-Messenger-Galileo/dp/022632009X

Following the Renaissance, Europe had an explosion of science. The works of the Greeks had been lost during the Dark Ages while civilizations caught up to the technical progress. Or so we were taught in school. Previously, we looked at the contributions during the Golden Age of the Islamic Empires and the Renaissance when that science returned to Europe following the Holy Wars. The great thinkers from the Renaissance pushed boundaries and opened minds. But the revolution coming after them would change the very way we thought of the world. It was a revolution based in science and empirical thought, lasting from the middle of the 1500s to late in the 1600s.  There are three main aspects I'd like to focus on in terms of taking all the knowledge of the world from that point and preparing it to give humans enlightenment, what we call the age after the Scientific Revolution. These are new ways of reasoning and thinking, specialization, and rigor. Let's start with rigor. My cat jumps on the stove and burns herself. She doesn't do it again. My dog gets too playful with the cat and gets smacked. Both then avoid doing those things in the future. Early humans learn that we can forage certain plants and then realize we can take those plants to another place and have them grow. And then we realize they grow best when planted at certain times of the year. And watching the stars can provide guidance on when to do so. This evolved over generations of trial and error.  Yet we believed those stars revolved around the earth for much of our existence. Even after designing orreries and mapping the heavens, we still hung on to this belief until Copernicus. His 1543 work “On The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” marks the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. Here, he almost heretically claimed that the stars in fact revolved around the sun, as did the Earth.  This wasn't exactly new. Aristarchus had theorized this heliocentric model in Ancient Greece. Ptolemy had disagreed in Almagest, where he provided tables to compute location and dates using the stars. Tables that had taken rigor to produce. And that Ptolemaic system came to be taken for granted. It worked fine.  The difference was, Copernicus had newer technology. He had newer optics, thousands more years of recorded data (some of which was contributed by philosophers during the golden age of Islamic science), the texts of ancient astronomers, and newer ecliptical tables and techniques with which to derive them.  Copernicus didn't accept what he was taught but instead looked to prove or disprove it with mathematical rigor. The printing press came along in 1440 and 100 years later, Luther was lambasting the church, Columbus discovered the New World, and the printing press helped disseminate information in a way that was less controllable by governments and religious institutions who at times felt threatened by that information. For example, Outlines of Pyrrhonism from first century Sextus Empiricus was printed in 1562, adding skepticism to the growing European thought. In other words, human computers were becoming more sentient and needed more input.  We couldn't trust what the ancients were passing down and the doctrine of the church was outdated. Others began to ask questions.  Johannes Keppler published Mysterium Cosmographicum in 1596, in defense of Copernicus. He would go on to study math, such as the relationship between math and music, and the relationship between math and the weather. And in 1604 published Astronomiae Pars Optica, where he proposed a new method to measure eclipses of the moon. He would become the imperial mathematician to Emperor Rudolf II, where he could work with other court scholars. He worked on optical theory and wrote Astronomiae Pars Optica, or The Optical Part of Astronomy. He published numerous other works that pushed astronomy, optics, and math forward. His Epitome of Copernican Astronomy would go further than Copernicus, assigning ellipses to the movements of celestial bodies and while it didn't catch on immediately, his inductive reasoning and the rigor that followed, was enough to have him conversing with Galileo.  Galileo furthered the work of Copernicus and Kepler. He picked up a telescope in 1609 and in his lifetime saw magnification go from 3 to 30 times. This allowed him to map Jupiter's moons, proving the orbits of other celestial bodies. He identified sunspots. He observed the strength of motions and developed formulas for inertia and parabolic trajectories.  We were moving from deductive reasoning, or starting our scientific inquiry with a theory - to inductive reasoning, or creating theories based on observation. Galileos observations expanded our knowledge of Venus, the moon, and the tides. He helped to transform how we thought, despite ending up in an Inquisition over his findings. The growing quantity and types of systematic experimentation represented a shift in values. Emiricism, observing evidence for yourself, and the review of peers - whether they disagreed or not. These methods were being taught in growing schools but also in salons and coffee houses and, as was done in Athens, in paid lectures. Sir Francis Bacon argued about only basing scientific knowledge on inductive reasoning. We now call this the Baconian Method, which he wrote about in 1620 when he published his book, New method, or Novum Organum in latin. This was the formalization of eliminative induction. He was building on if not replacing the inductive-deductive method  in Aristotle's Organon. Bacon was the Attorney General of England and actually wrote Novum while sitting as the Lord Chancellor of England, who presides over the House of Lords and also is the highest judge, or was before Tony Blair.  Bacon's method built on ancient works from not only Aristotle but also Al-Biruni, al-Haytham, and many others. And has influenced generations of scientists, like John Locke.  René Descartes helped lay the further framework for rationalism, coining the term “I think therefore I am.” He became by many accounts the father of modern Western Philosophy and asked what can we be certain of, or what is true? This helped him rethink various works and develop Cartesian geometry. Yup, he was the one who developed standard notation in 1637, a thought process that would go on to impact many other great thinkers for generations - especially with the development of calculus. As with many other great natural scientists or natural philosophers of the age, he also wrote on the theory of music, anatomy, and some of his works could be considered a protopsychology.  Another method that developed in the era was empiricism, which John Locke proposed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1689. George Berkeley, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume would join that movement and develop a new basis for human knowledge in that empirical tradition that the only true knowledge accessible to our minds was that based on experience. Optics and simple machines had been studied and known of since antiquity. But tools that deepened the understating of sciences began to emerge during this time. We got the steam digester, new forms of telescopes, vacuum pumps, the mercury barometer. And, most importantly for this body of work - we got the mechanical calculator.  Robert Boyle was influenced by Galileo, Bacon, and others. He gave us Boyle's Law, explaining how the pressure of gas increases as the volume of a contain holding the gas decreases. He built air pumps. He investigated how freezing water expands, he experimented with crystals. He experimented with magnetism, early forms of electricity. He published the Skeptical Chymist in 1660 and another couple of dozen books. Before him, we had alchemy and after him, we had chemistry. One of his students was Robert Hooke. Hooke. Hooke defined the law of elasticity, He experimented with everything. He made music tones from brass cogs that had teeth cut in specific proportions. This is storing data on a disk, in a way. Hooke coined the term cell. He studied gravitation in Micrographia, published in 1665.  And Hooke argued, conversed, and exchanged letters at great length with Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. He gave the first theory on the speed of sound, Newtonian mechanics, the binomials series. He also gave us Newton's Rules for Science which are as follows: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, until such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions These appeared in Principia, which gave us the laws of motion and a mathematical description of gravity leading to universal gravitation. Newton never did find the secret to the Philosopher's Stone while working on it, although he did become the Master of the Royal Mint at a pivotal time of recoining, and so who knows. But he developed the first reflecting telescope and made observations about prisms that led to his book Optics in 1704. And ever since he and Leibniz developed calculus, high school and college students alike have despised him.  Leibniz also did a lot of work on calculus but was a great philosopher as well. His work on logic  All our ideas are compounded from a very small number of simple ideas, which form the alphabet of human thought. Complex ideas proceed from these simple ideas by a uniform and symmetrical combination, analogous to arithmetical multiplication. This would ultimately lead to the algebra of concepts and after a century and a half of great mathematicians and logicians would result in Boolean algebra, the zero and one foundations of computing, once Claude Shannon gave us information theory a century after that.  Blaise Pascal was another of these philosopher mathematician physicists who also happened to dabble in inventing. I saved him for last because he didn't just do work on probability theory, do important early work on vacuums, give us Pascal's Triangle for binomial coefficients, and invent the hydraulic press. Nope. He also developed Pascal's Calculator, an early mechanical calculator that is the first known to have worked. He didn't build it to do much, just help with the tax collecting work he was doing for his family.  The device could easily add and subtract two numbers and then loop through those tasks in order to do rudimentary multiplication and division. He would only build about 50, but the Pascaline as it came to be known was an important step in the history of computing. And that Leibniz guy, he invented the Leibniz wheels to make the multiplication automatic rather than just looping through addition steps. It wouldn't be until 1851 that the Arithmometer made a real commercial go at mechanical calculators in a larger and more business like way. While Tomas, the inventor of that device is best known for his work on the calculator today, his real legacy is the 1,000 families who get their income from the insurance company he founded, which is still in business as GAN Assurances, and the countless families who have worked there or used their services.  That brings us to the next point about specializations. Since the Egyptians and Greeks we've known that the more specialists we had in fields, the more discoveries they made. Many of these were philosophers or scientists. They studied the stars and optics and motions and mathematics and geometry for thousands of years, and an increasingly large amount of information was available to generations that followed starting with the written words first being committed to clay tablets in Mesopotamia. The body of knowledge had grown to the point where one could study a branch of science, such as mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry for their entire lives - improving each field in their own way. Every few generations, this transformed societal views about nature. We also increased our study of anatomy, with an increase in or return to the dissection of human corpses, emerging from the time when that was not allowed. And these specialties began to diverge into their own fields in the next generations. There was certainly still collaboration, and in fact the new discoveries only helped to make science more popular than ever. Given the increased popularity, there was more work done, more theories to prove or disprove, more scholarly writings, which were then given to more and more people through innovations to the printing press, and a more and more literate people. Seventeenth century scientists and philosophers were able to collaborate with members of the mathematical and astronomical communities to effect advances in all fields. All of this rapid change in science since the end of the Renaissance created a groundswell of interest in new ways to learn about findings and who was doing what. There was a Republic of Letters, or a community of intellectuals spread across Europe and America. These informal networks sprang up and spread information that might have been considered heretical before transmitted through secret societies of intellectuals and through encrypted letters. And they fostered friendships, like in the early days of computer science.  There were groups meeting in coffee houses and salons. The Royal Society of London sprang up in 1600. Then the British Royal Society was founded in 1660. They started a publication called Philosophical Transactions in 1665. There are over 8,000 members of the society, which runs to this day with fellows of the society including people like Robert Hooke and fellows would include Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Einstein, Francis Crick, Turing, Tim Berners-Lee, Elon Musk, and Stephen Hawking. And this inspired Colbert to establish the French Academy of Sciences in 1666. They swapped papers, read one another's works, and that peer review would evolve into the journals and institutions we have today. There are so many more than the ones mentioned in this episode. Great thinkers like Otto von Guericke, Otto Brunfels, Giordano Bruno, Leonard Fuchs, Tycho Brahe, Samuel Hartlib, William Harvey, Marcello Malpighi, John Napier, Edme Mariotte, Santorio Santorio, Simon Stevin, Franciscus Sylvius, John Baptist van Helmont, Andreas Vesalius, Evangelista Torricelli, Francois Viete, John Wallis, and the list goes on.  Now that scientific communities were finally beyond where the Greeks had left off like with Plato's Academy and the letters sent by ancient Greeks. The scientific societies had emerged similarly, centuries later. But the empires had more people and resources and traditions of science to build on.  This massive jump in learning then prepared us for a period we now call the Enlightenment, which then opened minds and humanity was ready to accept a new level of Science in the Age of Enlightenment. The books, essays, society periodicals, universities, discoveries, and inventions are often lost in the classroom where the focus can be about the wars and revolutions they often inspired. But those who emerged in the Scientific Revolution acted as guides for the Enlightenment philosophers, scientists, engineers, and thinkers that would come next. But we'll have to pick that back up in the next episode!

Big thank you to Whettmen Chelmets for providing the guest mix this week. Check out his bandcamp to find a number of albums of his, including his recent split release "Theme Variations": https://strategictapereserve.bandcamp.com/album/theme-variationshttps://whettmanchelmets.bandcamp.com 1 - Nate Scheible - “I Don’t Give a Fuck if You Like Me” - Prions and Scrapie - 00:00 2 - Lake Mary & M. Sage - “Towards a Golden Light” - Shepherd’s Bridge - 01:51 3 - Jake Muir - “Green Eyes” - Lady’s Mantle - 03:36 4 - Acef Stripe - “The Stuffies are Not Sleeping” - Foxy - 05:17 5 - Andrew Tuttle - “Burwood Heights Convenience” - Alexandra - 06:22 6 - RA - “Overcoming Sadness” - The Meditations of Zera Yacob - 07:39 7 - Pulse Emitter - “Ripples” - Swirlings  - 09:29 8 - Siavash Amini and Saaad - “Calm in Resignation” - All Lanes of Lilac Evening - 11:39 9 - Assassin of Sound - “Artic (66° 30’N)” - Earth Suite - 14:31 10 - Binaural Space - “Good Night Spacemen” - Boyhood - 16:31 11 - Nhung Ngyuen - “Bittersweet” - An Ordinary Narrative - 18:34 12 - Cruel Diagonals - “Topography of an Affliction” - s/t - 22:12 13 - clair rousay - “buy my blessing” - “i’ll give you all of my love” - 24:00 14 - Chorchill - “Human Submarine” - Nachtfisch - 24:53 15 - Wife Signs - “Burning Off the Nuance” - Beneath the Weight of Care - 26:59 16 - Whettman Chelmets - “But I Need to” - I Don’t Want to Let Go, but I Need to Let Go - 29:24 17 - Amy Cutler - “riddles of the firmament” - Oro Tape (Fieldtrips of the Damned) - 32:58 18 - qualchan. - “glass.” - Micrographia - 35:08 19 - Lucy Liyou - “Who You Feed” - Welfare - 35:33 20 - Lowering - “Just a Fever” - Sleep in Perpetual Storm - 36:52 21 - Matt Jencik - “Night Gallery Pause” - Dream Character - 38:19 22 - Forest Robots - “It’s Quietest at the Edge of the Crestline” - Timberline and Mountain Crest - 41:36 23 - Ghost Signs - “We Haunt These Cities Like a Half Remembered Dream” - The Holy Ghost and other Lost Souls - 44:47 24 - Barraco Barner - “20200420 Pops” - 20200419-20200422 - 46:47 25 - Barraco Barner - “20200421 There’s a Payoff I Promise” - 20200419-20200422 - 48:45

El Dr. Tomás Camacho, es doctor en medicina y cirugía por la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxixology y experto Internacional en Toxicología por el Colegio Oficial de Químicos de Sevilla. Además, es el coordinador del área de Toxicología Clínica de AETOX (Asociación Española de Toxicología) y ha trabajado en el Departamento de Inmunología y Enfermedades Infecciosas de la Universidad de Harvard (Boston). Su pasión por la investigación y por avanzar en su especialidad de toxicología, le llevaron a estar en uno de los principales epicentros mundiales de este área médica, Estados Unidos, desde donde a finales de 2011 reclamaron su colaboración en una serie de investigaciones para la Agencia Espacial Norteamericana NASA, que analizaban las repercusiones de los tóxicos en la misiones espaciales donde los astronautas tuvieran que permanecer más de 180 días en el espacio. Tratamos las últimas noticias de la pandemia de la COVID19, hablamos sobre las PCRs y la carga viral en lenguaje sencillo, y lo que está aún por llegar. En la parte final de la entrevista conocemos la pasión del Dr. Camacho por los microscopios, ya que junto a su mujer, posee la mejor colección del mundo, tanto por su valor científico como histórico y cultural. Esta colección está compuesta por 230 microscopios, representativos de los existentes desde el siglo XVII hasta principios del siglo XX, ademas de numerosos libros, catálogos y otros documentos. El Doctor nos cuenta la rocambolesca historia de cómo se hizo con un microscopio de Leeuwenhoek original construido en el ano 1680, y con una edición original del libro Micrographia publicada por Robert Hooke en 1665, dos piezas de incalculable valor y ya catalogadas como Patrimonio Histórico nacional.

dessanをゲストに迎え、分子細胞生物学の入門知識について話しました。Show notes ロバート・フック Micrographia アント二・ファン・レーウェンフック レーウェンフックとフェルメール 細胞説 自然発生説 前成説 後成説(エピジェネシス) 真核生物 原核生物 エピジェネティクス DNA RNA タンパク質 遺伝子 ゲノム 染色体 体細胞分裂 凝集した染色体が娘細胞に分配される … 真核生物においては、DNAを二個の娘細胞に分配するために染色体とよばれる凝集した構造が現れる。姉妹染色体が娘細胞に均等に分配される。本当にこの現象は美しく生命的神秘にあふれている。最後には核の形成と染色体の脱凝集の様子が映されている。どのように姉妹染色体が絡まらずに別れることができるのか、凝集と脱凝集はどのように起こるのかといったような基本的な問題も、関与する遺伝子の理解は進んでいるものの、実際のメカニズムに関しては大きな問いとして残されている。 ウニの発生 … ウニの受精卵が卵割していく様子を撮影した動画。 ゼブラフィッシュの発生 … 受精卵は細胞分裂を通して複雑な構造を形成していく。 減数分裂 セントラルドグマ コドン フレームシフト 変異 イザベルスチュワートガードナー美術館 合奏(フェルメール) まいばいお10 DNA to Protein① … まいんさんの力作。DNAの発見からセントラルドグマまで、非常にまとまっているので是非よんでいただきたい。 Editorial notes わかりやすさと面白さ、正確さを両立させるのは難しいですね……(dessan) がんばって説明したのですがやはり説明するのはむずかしい… (tadasu)

Today we celebrate the botanist who was also a spy during WWII. We'll learn about the German photographer who saw artistic inspiration in his close-ups of plants. We'll hear some prose about winter, We Grow That Garden Library with a book that offers us 100 tips for Growing a More Glorious Garden.  I'll talk about a sweet little gift of bling for your indoor pots and containers, and then we’ll wrap things up with the woman who became the beautiful face of a produce company. But first, let's catch up on a few recent events.   Here's Today's Curated Articles:   Will I Ever Call Sansevieria by Its New Name? - The Houseplant Guru by Lisa Steinkopf Goodbye Sansevieria trifasciata... Hello, Dracaena trifasciata!   The Royal Society- Microscopic Blue Mould @royalsociety This beautiful illustration is actually a microscopic view of blue mold growing on leather. The original (1665) appears in Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and Inquiries thereupon, by Robert Hooke. Penicillium expansum is commonly known as Blue Mold. Blue molds are the bluish fungus that grows on food. Most people are familiar with the blue molds on some cheeses...   Substituting Herbs| @RosaleeForet “What herbs can I use instead of ________?” Great post from @RosaleeForet At first, it may seem like a simple question. But the reality is, herbal substitutions are more complicated than that. You need to know how to think about them first.”    Now, if you'd like to check out these curated articles for yourself, you're in luck- because I share all of it with the Listener Community on Facebook. So, there’s no need to take notes or search for links - the next time you're on Facebook, just search for the Free Facebook Group - The Daily Gardener Community and request to join. I'd love to meet you in the group.     Here Are Today's Brevities: #OTD On this day in 1855, it was starting to snow on Walden Pond, and Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal: “At 8.30 a fine snow begins to fall, increasing very gradually, perfectly straight down, till in fifteen minutes the ground is white, the smooth places first, and thus the winter landscape is ushered in.  And now it is falling thus all the land over, sifting down through the tree-tops in woods, and on the meadow and pastures, where the dry grass and weeds conceal it at first, and on the river and ponds, in which it is dissolved. But in a few minutes, it turns to rain, and so the wintry landscape is postponed for the present.”   #OTD Today is the birthday of Peter Smithers, who was born on this day in 1913. Sir Peter Smithers, was a British politician and diplomat, but also an award-winning gardener. He worked as a British spy during World War II. Smithers was said to have inspired the fictional character of James Bond. His obituary stated that: "Flowers were ... important to him. [He said] "I regard gardening and planting as the other half of life, a counterpoint to the rough and tumble of politics."   Smithers learned to love the natural world from his nanny. When he was in his 50s, that Smithers was finally able to focus on horticulture and botany fulltime. Smithers loved rhododendrons, magnolias, tree peonies, lilies, and wisteria. He developed a garden that didn't require a ton of work - along the same lines as Ruth Stout. He wrote: “The garden is planted so as to reduce labor to an absolute minimum as the owner grows older.”    Thanks to Smither's travels, the Royal Horticulture Society asked Smithers to write his gardening memoirs. The book was a part-autobiography and part-garden book. Smithers had observed gardens in England, Mexico, Central America, and Switzerland. Smithers shared stories from his incredible career - like the time he was serving in naval intelligence in Washington when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. And, George Coen commented, "[Smithers is] as comfortable talking about [his career] as he is in explaining the behavior of wasps in a flower garden."   And, Smither's followed individual basic principals to help ground him as he pursued the hobby of gardening. All gardeners could benefit from Smithers wise advise. He wrote: "[The garden] shall be a source of pleasure to the owner and his friends, not a burden and anxiety."   #OTD Today is the anniversary of the death of the German plant photographer Karl Blossfeldt who died on this day in 1932.  Working in Weimar, Germany, as a sculptor and architect, Karl made his cameras himself. He designed them to magnify up to thirty times - which allowed him to capture the incredible forms, patterns, and textures of plants. Blossfeldt’s work was not a passing fancy; he took pictures of plants for 35 years. Karl said, “If I give someone a horsetail, he will have no difficulty making a photographic enlargement of it – anyone can do that. But to observe it, to notice and discover old forms, is something only a few are capable of.“   Karl preferred to portray an ideal, and as a result, he carefully selected his specimens. Even then, he shaped them with strategic pruning and clipping and arranged them in the very best light. As a teacher of industrial design, Blossfeldt wanted his students to understand that art and design originated in the forms of nature and he wrote, “The plant must be valued as a totally artistic & architectural structure."   and “The plant never lapses in to mere arid functionalism; it fashions and shapes according to logic and suitability, and with its primeval force compels everything to attain the highest artistic form.”   Four years before his death, at the age of 63, Karl Blossfeldt created a book of his photographs called “Art Forms in Nature”. The book featured 120 photos, and they were all created using a home-made pinhole camera. The book made him famous. A few years later, a second edition featured more plant photographs. After the first book was released, the San Francisco Examiner wrote a feature review that gushed: “These photographs of leaves, blossoms, and stalks of living plants amplify details… not apparent to the human eye. One of the most interesting of the photographs … is [of] the plant known as Willkomm's Saxifrage (pronounced SAK-suh-frij), enlarged eight times. The picture does not seem to be that of a plant but a delicately designed and fashioned brooch.  Another [image] shows a shoot of the Japanese Golden Ball Tree, enlarged ten times, and is strikingly like the hilt of a sword used in the adventurous Middle Ages.  [Another] picture, showing the rolled leaf of a German ostrich fern, was also so much like a crozier (a hooked staff carried by a bishop) that it seems [it] must have been designed from fern leaves.  Another photograph looks like the detail of a Fourteenth Century screen done in wrought iron, but it is nothing, but a picture of the tendrils of the common pumpkin vine enlarged four times.  Students all over Europe are interested in the German professor's unique discovery and will, in the future, go more and more to nature for decorative designs.”   Karl’s work still feels fresh and fascinating, and his 6,000 photographs remind us that art often imitates Nature. Karl’s microphotography is an excellent reminder to gardeners to look more closely at their plants. It was Karl Blossfeldt who said, "Nature educates us into beauty and inwardness and is a source of the most noble pleasure."    Unearthed Words "The grim frost is at hand, when apples will fall thick, almost thunderous, on the hardened earth." - D. H. Lawrence, Author “Winter, a lingering season, is a time to gather golden moments, embark upon a sentimental journey, and enjoy every idle hour.” –John Boswell, Historian "I prefer winter and fall when you feel the bone structure in the landscape - the loneliness of it - the dead feeling of winter. Something waits beneath it - the whole story doesn't show." - Andrew Wyeth, Realistic Painter   It's Time to Grow That Garden Library with Today's Book: Ground Rules by Kate Frey The subtitle to this book is 100 Easy Lessons for Growing a More Glorious Garden, and it came out in October of last year. In this photo-filled book, Kate shares her secrets to garden design and hard-won lessons on gardening. Thanks to the gorgeous illustrations and practical tips, Kate’s book is an uplifting and refreshing read. Best of all, Kate’s tips are shared one page at a time, and they are easy-to-read and understand. This makes Kate the rarest sort of expert gardener and designer in that she understands how to explain things to gardeners. Kate’s book covers the following sections: 1) Design - paths, seating, color combos... 2) Planting Advice - plants for your zone & weather considerations. 3) Soil - identify the soil you have and then amend it. 4) Water - conserve water, use drip irrigation, plant smart. 5) How To Be a Good Garden Parent - deadhead, divide plants, manage weeds. 6) How To Attract Birds, Bees, and Butterflies - attract insects with plants and provide water. 7) How To Create a Garden of Earthly Delights - how to evoke emotion through design and create community through plants.     Today's Recommended Holiday Gift for Gardeners: 5.2" x 4.6" 3pc Aluminum Mushroom Planter Figurine Set Gold - Smith & Hawken™ Bring a touch of fun, rustic flair to your plant collection when you decorate using the 3-Piece Aluminum Mushroom Planter Figurine Set from Smith & Hawken™. This gold-finish planter decor set includes three figurines designed to look just like little mushrooms, complete with allover textured and embossed detailing. Each mushroom features a small stake at the bottom, making it easy to insert into your planter, and the aluminum construction offers lasting style. Use them in the same planter, or spread them throughout your collection for whimsical appeal. It’s a fun way to add a little bling to your indoor pots and containers.     Something Sweet Reviving the little botanic spark in your heart #OTD Today is the birthday of the American model Lorraine Collett who was born on this day in 1892 in Kansas City, Missouri. At the age of 23, Lorraine was working as a Sun-Maid Raisin girl and wore a blue bonnet with a white blouse and blue piping. Lorraine and the other Sun-Maid girls handed out raisins. In a spectacular marketing stunt, Lorraine even hopped aboard a small plane every day of the festival and tossed raisins into the crowds of people. One Sunday morning, after her mom had set her hair into eight long black curls, Lorraine was outside drying her hair in the warmth of her sunny backyard in Fresno. That afternoon, Lorraine had swapped out her blue bonnet for her mother’s red one. The combination of her silky black curls and the red bonnet in the sunshine apparently made an arresting sight. Coincidentally, a group of raisin coop executives and their wives walked by at that very moment, and they asked Lorraine about the red bonnet. After that day, all the Sun-Maids wore red bonnets, and Lorraine agreed to pose for a watercolor painting.  Lorraine and her mom had to rent an apartment in San Fransico for a month in order to work with the artist Fanny Scafford. Lorraine posed every day - all month long - for three hours a day. She held a wooden tray overflowing with grapes while wearing the red bonnet. The portrait ended up as the symbol for the company, and it was included on every box of raisins. One newspaper article about the story in 1978 had the headline “Hair A-glinting in the Sun Made Girl an Emblem.” After the executive passed away, the painting ended up in Lorraine’s possession. But after many years, Lorraine returned the watercolor to the company. Today, the portrait hangs in a conference room at the Sun-Maid Growers plant. And the faded red bonnet? That was donated to the Smithsonian on the company’s 75th Anniversary.     Thanks for listening to The Daily Gardener, and remember: “For a happy, healthy life, garden every day.”

Because of dad brain, the original musical tracks for episode 48 were offset by almost 30 seconds (even more embarrassing, because I actually LISTENED to it before uploading). I've fixed the audio for the original episode, but anyone who downloaded it already is stuck with the bad audio version. Because of limitations in the podcasting medium, the only way I can get a new episode to those who have downloaded but haven't listened yet is to release a new episode to the feed. Eventually (maybe after a month or so) I will delete this, so only the fixed original remains.   Sorry for the inconvenience guys! 

Germs are regarded today with a combination of fear and disgust. But mankind’s first introduction to the microbial world started off on a very different foot. In this episode, as part of a larger series contextualizing germ theory, we’ll talk about the discovery of animalcules and how they forever changed our conception of the natural world -- and what causes disease. Plus, a new #AdamAnswers about the influence of Bayes Theorem on medicine!   Sources: Albury WR, Marie-Francois-Xavier Bichat, Encyclopedia of Life Science, 2001.  Ball CS, The Early History of the Compound Microscope, Bios, Vol 37, No2 (May 1966). Findlen P, Athanasius Kircher: The Last Man Who Knew Everything.  Feinstein AR, “An Analysis of Diagnostic Reasoning,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1973. Forsberg L.Nature's Invisibilia: The Victorian Microscope and the Miniature Fairy, Victorian Studies 2015. Gest H. The discovery of microorganisms by Robert Hooke and Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Fellows of The Royal Society. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of Lond, 2004.  Hall, GH, The Clinical Application of Bayes Theorem, The Lancet, September 9, 1967.  Howard-Jones N, Fracastoro and Henle: A Re-Appraisal of their Contribution to the Concept of Communicable Diseases,” Medical History, 1977, 21: 61-68. Lane N, The unseen world: reflections on Leeuwenhoek (1677) ‘Concerning little animals’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 19 April 2015.  Lawson I, Crafting the microworld: how Robert Hooke constructed knowledge about small things, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of Lond, 2015. McLeMee S, Athanasius Kirchehr, Dude of Wonders, The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 28, 2002.  Van Leeuwenhoek A, Observations, communicated to the publisher by Mr. Antony van Leewenhoeck, in a dutch letter of the 9th Octob. 1676. here English'd: concerning little animals by him observed in rain-well-sea- and snow water; as also in water wherein pepper had lain infused (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1677.0003) “Little worms which propagate plague,” J R Coll Physicians Edinb, 2008.  Van Zuylen J, “The microscopes of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek,” Journal of Microscopy., 1981. Music from https://filmmusic.io, "Wholesome," “Pookatori and Friends,” and  by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com). License: CC BY

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life and work of Robert Hooke (1635-1703) who worked for Robert Boyle and was curator of experiments at the Royal Society. The engraving of a flea, above, is taken from his Micrographia which caused a sensation when published in 1665. Sometimes remembered for his disputes with Newton, he studied the planets with telescopes and snowflakes with microscopes. He was an early proposer of a theory of evolution, discovered light diffraction with a wave theory to explain it and felt he was rarely given due credit for his discoveries. With David Wootton Anniversary Professor of History at the University of York Patricia Fara President Elect of the British Society for the History of Science And Rob Iliffe Professor of History of Science at Oxford University Producer: Simon Tillotson First broadcast on 18th February 2016

O único microscopio Leewenhoek autentificado do mundo pertence á colección dos médicos Pallas-Camacho. Actualmente se exhibe no Museo de Historia Natural da USC xunto cun exemplar de Micrographia de Robert Hook. O doutor Tomás Camacho cóntanos como adquiriu esta xoia en e-bay pola que pedían 50 €. Unha historia fascinante onde as haxa. Tamén conversamos co restaurador de artesanía e instrumentos científicos Rafael San Marcial.

O único microscopio Leewenhoek autentificado do mundo pertence á colección dos médicos Pallas-Camacho. Actualmente se exhibe no Museo de Historia Natural da USC xunto cun exemplar de Micrographia de Robert Hook. O doutor Tomás Camacho cóntanos como adquiriu esta xoia en e-bay pola que pedían 50 €. Unha historia fascinante onde as haxa. Tamén conversamos co restaurador de artesanía e instrumentos científicos Rafael San Marcial.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life and work of Robert Hooke (1635-1703) who worked for Robert Boyle and was curator of experiments at the Royal Society. The engraving of a flea, above, is taken from his Micrographia which caused a sensation when published in 1665. Sometimes remembered for his disputes with Newton, he studied the planets with telescopes and snowflakes with microscopes. He was an early proposer of a theory of evolution, discovered light diffraction with a wave theory to explain it and felt he was rarely given due credit for his discoveries. With David Wootton Anniversary Professor of History at the University of York Patricia Fara President Elect of the British Society for the History of Science And Rob Iliffe Professor of History of Science at Oxford University Producer: Simon Tillotson.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life and work of Robert Hooke (1635-1703) who worked for Robert Boyle and was curator of experiments at the Royal Society. The engraving of a flea, above, is taken from his Micrographia which caused a sensation when published in 1665. Sometimes remembered for his disputes with Newton, he studied the planets with telescopes and snowflakes with microscopes. He was an early proposer of a theory of evolution, discovered light diffraction with a wave theory to explain it and felt he was rarely given due credit for his discoveries. With David Wootton Anniversary Professor of History at the University of York Patricia Fara President Elect of the British Society for the History of Science And Rob Iliffe Professor of History of Science at Oxford University Producer: Simon Tillotson.

Professor Dirk Aarts, Physical Chemistry Laboratory, Oxford and Chemistry Fellow, Christ Church gives the concluding remarks to the days talks.

Professor Eiichi Nakamura, Department of Chemistry, University of Tokyo talks about innovations in microscopy.

Dr Steven Lee Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge gives an insight into some modern microscopy innovations.

Dr Anna Camilleri English Fellow, Christ Church give a talk on the use language within Hooke's writings.

Dr Allan Chapman Science Historian, Wadham College talks about Robert Hookes groundbreaking book Micrographia.

Judith Curthoys Archivist, Christ Church talks about Robert Hooke's time at Christ Church.

The iKnife knows when it's cutting through healthy tissue or cancerous tissue during surgery. In 91 tests, it correctly identified the tissue every time, and in less than a second. Chimpanzees and orangutans can use 'autobiographical memory' - previously thought to be unique to humans. In a series of tests, the apes were able to accurately recall an event that happened three years prior. Genetecists may have found a way to switch off the rogue chromosome that causes Down's syndrome.  The discovery of two giant viruses could mean an entirely new kingdom of life. More than 93% of their genes are unknown and not on any existing database. Robert Hooke's Micrographia is available as a free e-book thanks to Project Gutenberg. Also check the Wikipedia page. The 2013 NZ Skeptics Conference will be held in Wellington from the 6th to the 8th of September. Great speakers like astronomer Dr. Pamela Gay, climate scientist Professor Martin Manning, microbiologist Dr. Siouxsie Wiles and many more.