Phil Plait
Phil Plait on the New Star Trek Movie
I don't usually go to scientists when I want opinions of a movie, but Phil Plait seems like a perfect guy to ask about the new and revised Star Trek universe. Plait is a natural skeptic who has a keen eye for scientific detail (in his book Bad Astronomy he railed against Hollywood flubbing basic science), but he's also a guy who likes to have fun. He has a great review and critique of the movie on his Bad Astronomy blog.
I’m a nitpicking dork.
Maybe you figured that out on your own. If so, I apologize for only stating it here at the end.
But I actually did really enjoy this movie. Yes, it doesn’t follow canon. But I have news for you: Star Trek never did! It’s incredibly inconsistent, and no matter how much you spin, fold, mutilate, and retcon your way through the series, it contradicts itself. If you are the kind of person who gets mortally offended when Trek defies its own history, then you should really just let it go.
Because this movie rocked.
People were worried about the Hollywoodification of Trek. Well sure, there is a lot more action here, and yes Spock actually has a love interest. But we know that Spock had emotions, and we know that given the right circumstances they would surface. Why accept an angry Spock — which we saw all the time in the original series — but not a lovestruck one?
Read the whole post for his detailed analysis of the science used in the flick.
Philip Plait and the Mysteries of the Cosmos
Excellent discussion of the Universe by top-notch astronomers. This is Part One of the panel's talks, you can view the rest of them here.
Help Get The Skeptologists On The Air
Leading skeptics Phil Plait and Michael Shermer are among the brilliant cast involved in a new project called The Skeptologists. They are trying to get the show picked up by a television network.
We're not willing to just accept stories of the paranormal or supernatural. We want proof. Each week, we'll take on a handful of wild claims -- from the Bermuda Triangle to Bigfoot sightings to haunted houses -- and apply accepted scientific practices and experiments to see if these ideas really hold up. Whether in the field or in the lab, we'll literally put these subjects to the test in the hopes that one day we may find something that can't be explained. Each episode will investigate one or more popular paranormal, supernatural, or other type of phenomena, in favor of evidence-based science.
They've just finished wrapping up a pilot episode shoot and they anticipate pitching the program very soon. You can help get this show on the air.
We will compile the emails and present to the executives along with our all-star cast, entertaining pilot program and solid production background to seal a great TV deal to give the Skeptics of the world a show they can stand behind, and be proud of! Take a moment, and send a brief email to skeptologists@newrule.com. Your email will be collected and will help support the show.
With all of the ufo hunting, fake mediums, and paranormal 'investigators' on television (not to mention the bazillions of hours of religious programming), we desperately need to get skepticism some airtime. Send in your email to help get this show picked up by a network.
Book Review: Bad Astronomy by Phil Plait


(out of 5 stars)
Dr. Plait's Bad Astronomy is a first-rate introduction to astronomy-related myths and the real facts you should know. This book is intended as a primer for curious but otherwise beginning science readers. If you have read other popular science books, you probably don't need most of the info contained in this book. Plait sets straight many different myths, including why the sky is blue (not from ocean reflections) and why toilets flush the way they do (hint: it is not due to the rotation of the earth). Basic concepts are covered and popular but ignorant misconceptions are cleared up.
While this book was not really for me (I did skim through a few chapters), it is an excellent resource for someone interested in learning more about astronomy or science myths. Plait's writing is very easily digested and he is good at clearly defining his concepts. The section on debunking astronomy-related creationist points is well formed and should be a solid framework for smacking down those arguments. Three stars for me personally since I prefer more advanced treatment of astronomy, but solidly recommended for beginning science readers or those whose astronomy experience is very low.














































