Educational YouTube Channels: Extra Credits

Much like my last post, this YouTube channel recommendation may make you go, "Really? But it's all about computer games."

Extra Credits is a channel devoted to computer games. And that may make some people automatically assume that there can be no educational value to the shows, but this is a channel with surprising depth. The topics they cover are all related to computer games, but they touch on psychology, graphics design, economics, education, and history. Here are just two examples of shows that may surprise you.

They approach the topic of games in such a way that their shows are interesting, even for those who do not play computer games at all. When they cover topics such as game mechanics, they also cover things such as writing and good story telling, and those shows have made me reconsider how I write and sometimes how I interact with my students. Some of the shows have changed how I approach teaching, so while they are all nominally about games, the applications go far beyond computer games.

What introduced me to this channel actually wasn't the shows on computer games, but their shows about history. A couple of years ago a computer game company, wanting to promote one of their games, decided to fund a few episodes entirely about the history of Rome. Since then Extra Credits have done a number of history episodes about a variety of topics, including the story of John Snow, the father of epidemiology, a history of the Zulu empire, the South Sea investment bubble, and a brief history of the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 1500's. One of their more interesting series was a short biography of Mary Seacole. If you have heard of Florence Nightingale, but have never heard of Mary Seacole, then you need to learn about Mary, and this is a very good introduction.

This channel is another unexpected gem. It may be all about computer games, but if you watch it you will realize just how much educational material goes into developing and producing games. Even if you do not watch any of the shows about computer games, at least watch their shows about history, you will definitely learn something.

Educational YouTube Channels: Forgotten Weapons

This is one that will surprise many people, but the YouTube channel Forgotten Weapons, run by Ian McCollum, is perhaps one of the underappreciated gems of YouTube. Yes, the channel is all about guns, but he manages to pack in an incredible amount of history, engineering and weapon design into each video. I started watching because he had some interesting videos demonstrating some cool historical weapons, but I stuck around because of the incredible history behind the guns. For example, did you know that that Norway developed a combined knife-pistol for their mailmen in the mid 1800's? I didn't.

Or take this early Browning harmonica rifle (which sold at auction for $120,000).

This gun channel is not like others which emphasize the "macho" aspect of guns. Ian is more like the Bob Ross of guns. He keeps it calm, informative, and well researched. If you watch this channel for a while you will learn more about guns than you ever though possible (for example, ever wonder if a gun with a curved barrel would actually work? Well you can watch a video and find out.).

This is one of those channels where some parents may be concerned because it is all about guns, but there is an incredible amount of firearm history and gun engineering, presented in a non-sensational way, that I highly recommend it. You will also learn how different guns work and along the way learn about some of the most innovated solutions to mechanical problems in history. The thing that really blows me away (haha) about this channel is learning about how guns have evolved over time, and seeing all the failed designs. Watching a lot of these videos you really get a sense that the development and progression of gun technology was not direct and straight forward, but had a lot of false starts and incredible solutions to problems you never knew existed.

This channel can also serve as a kind of nerd sniping. If you are concerned that a certain loved one may secretly have the knack, try showing them this channel and if you come back and find them watching all the videos, then you know that they will be an engineer.

Note: A very small number of his videos have incidental swearing, usually when he demonstrating the most powerful guns.

Some interesting videos:
Firing a German anti-tank gun.
4-Bore Stopping Rifle in slow motion. (he nearly gets his shoulder dislocated)

Educational YouTube Channels: SmarterEveryDay

A while back I wrote about web comics that I like, and since then I wanted to do something similar about YouTube channels that I like. So, because it is easier to write about educational YouTube channels than it is to write about things like the Late Bronze Age Collapse, or Hamlet's Mill, I will write brief reviews of educational YouTube channels. You may already know about some of these, but there will definitely be a few you have never heard of, and there will be some that will surprise you.

Several years ago I came across a channel run by Destin Sandlin called SmarterEveryDay. That was back in the day when YouTube was mostly cats and dumb videos, so it was a breath of fresh air to find an interesting channel. I think SmarterEveryDay was the first channel I ever subscribed to back in 2011. The first video I remember watching was #15, which was about lightening. Since then he has put out videos about acoustic levitation, tattooing in slow motion, the direction of toilet swirls in the northern and southern hemispheres, and has even interviewed President Obama.

Destin's videos are educational, but he also brings in much more than just "education" into his videos. I appreciate that he shows his family and shows that he loves them in his videos. He also ends each video with a Bible reference.

Perhaps the most interesting video he ever did was about learning, and unlearning, how to ride a bike.

This video, and the insights he gives, are incredibly deep. You will be surprised how insightful learning how to ride a bike can be.

This is perhaps my favorite YouTube channel, and I highly recommend it to everyone of all ages. If parents are looking for good quality educational videos for their children to watch, this is the best place to start.

My Blog is not Dead

I know I have not been posting on my blog a lot lately, but this is because I have spent so much of my writing time on my research, writing papers, and my dissertation. That has been occupying my time, and when I get home after spending 8+ hours reading, writing and computing, the last thing I feel like doing is writing a blog post, and I am not into writing fluff.

When I write something for my blog I try to research it fully to make sure I know what I am talking about. This means that many of my posts never make it to a final product. I have 30+ drafts from the last year alone that never made it past the initial research stage, several of which I am planning on finishing. But my first major research paper, my dissertation, and now a second major research paper are taking up all my time and writing effort. Sometime in the next few weeks I may have more time to write, after I get my second paper submitted. Stay tuned.

A sample of posts I am working on:

• Philosophical Fallacies in the Wild: They do exist!
• Actual Legal Controversies Involving Religion
• Chiasmus in Moses 2
• Side-by-side comparison of Moses and Genesis
• The Late Bronze Age Collapse and the Exodus
• The Hypostasis of Faith
• Returning to Hamlet's Mill
• The Fallacy of the Incomprehensibility of God
• Why Troy?
• God as a Gardener

Escaping the Paradox: Heaps, Pirates, M. C. Escher and Language

There is an ancient paradox that goes something like this:

Imagine you have 10,000 grains of sand. If you had that much sand you would call it a heap of sand. Now imagine you remove one grain of sand so that you have 9,999 grains left. Is it still a heap? Yes, it still is a heap.

Remove one more grain of sand. Do you still have a heap of sand?

Keep removing single grains of sand. Each time you do you still have a heap of sand. When you are left with only two grains of sand is it still a heap? No? At what point did the heap of sand stop being a heap? Was it with three grains? or more?

That is the paradox. 10,000 grains of sand are definitely a heap, and if you take away one it is still a heap, but if you keep taking away single grains of sand when does it stop being a heap?

This paradox has plagued philosophers and students for over 2000 years and it keeps discussions going in introductory philosophy classes, which provides much employment to professional philosophers. But before we resolve this paradox I wanted to write a little about the art of M. C. Escher, because some of his most famous art can also be paradoxical. Below is his famous drawing entitled "Waterfall".

Image from www.mcescher.com.

What is paradoxical about this image is that the water at the "bottom" appears to flow "up" until it reaches the "top" where it falls "down" to begin the process all over again. Additionally each bend in the stream appears to be directly over another part of the structure, thereby creating an apparently impossible structure. This paradox, or optical illusion, how ever you want to call it, both confounds and delights all who see it.

While most people consider the work of M. C. Escher, appreciate it, perhaps hang a copy in their house or office, very few stop and take the time to consider why it is a paradox and ultimately escape the paradox.

If we just consider a single part of the image, say just the waterfall part, or one of the bends, by themselves there is no problem, nor a paradox.

Removed from the larger context these constituent parts are not paradoxical. So how did these individual parts go from non-paradoxical to paradoxical when put together?

The answer is that the paradox only exists because we assume more than there is in the image. The image itself is only a two dimensional collection of lines and shading that all together we interpret as a waterfall, a stream, and a brick structure with columns. The structure does not exist in three dimensions. The collection of two dimensional lines and shading create an image of what we interpret to be a three dimensional structure. If the structure really was three dimensional then it would defy the natural order of the universe, but it is not, so it does not.

The paradox only exists because we take each individual part, the waterfall, the bend in the stream, and we can imagine a real three dimensional structure like that, but when we try to fit the imaginary three dimensional parts together, we fail, and thus we have a paradox.

But if we remember that we are only looking at two dimensional lines and shading which only imply flowing water, columns and a brick structure, the paradox does not create a problem, and definitely does not trigger an existential crisis. If we do not make the leap from representation to actuality what we are left with is an interesting picture that does not break the laws of physics and geometry.

So now we can return and resolve the heap paradox. The reason why it creates a paradox is because each individual part is logical and non-paradoxical. There is nothing illogical about considering either 10,000 or 9,999 grains of sand to be a heap of sand. So if we have 10,000 grains and take away one we still have a heap. Much like a single bend in the stream in "Waterfall", it does not create a paradox. But it we then group a series of individual bends together we are left with a paradox.

With the drawing the paradox was created by mistaking a 2D representation for a 3D reality. In the heap paradox the mistake is extending words and language beyond their representations. In this case extending the definition of the word "heap", which is by definition inexact, to mean an exact value. Yes 10,000 grains of sand can make a heap because 10,000 grains of sand would be hard to count and thus for all practical purposes we cannot distinguish between 10,001, 10,000 or 9,999 grains. Hence we use the inexact term "heap".

The heap paradox only remains a paradox if we commit an equivocation and alter the definition of the word to mean an exact number. An exact number implies an exact boundary between "heap" and "not heap", which did not exist in the original definition.

So should we insist on the eradication of all paradoxes from our language? Heavens no. These paradoxes, much like the drawings of M. C. Escher add richness to our language and are the basis to our humor and entertainment. But if we forget the nature of language we might be confronted with a paradox and conclude that the nature of reality is broken, when it is only our understanding that is limited. We must remember that our paradoxes are rooted in a misuse of language. If we remember that then we can escape the paradox and it can be humorous and entertaining, but if not, then, like Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance, we will be slaves to a misuse of language.

Alternate Verse Divisions for Moses Chapter 2

Recently I was reading in the Book of Moses Chapter 2 and part way through the chapter I thought, "That is an awful number of 'And I, God' phrases all right in a row!" But I have long since learned that there are never random repetitions in the scriptures. If there is something that is being repeated over, and over, and over, then it is for a reason. If the same phrase is used repeatedly then that always indicates literary structure that is meant to be a teaching tool.

As I looked over the chapter I noticed that many times the phrase "And I, God" appeared at the beginning of a verse, but sometimes it was in the middle of a verse. If you look at the original manuscript for the Book of Moses, you can see that it was written as one big paragraph, with no verses or other structure, including punctuation. Only the chapter breaks were present in the original. I couldn't find when and who first broke the text into verses, but it was most likely Orson Pratt in 1878. I have previously written about how if we change some of the punctuation and verse structure in the Book of Mormon then we can see some insights that are not clear in our current version. So I am not adverse to second guessing Orson Pratt on how he decided to break the text into verses.

Below I have altered the verses of Moses 2 to highlight some of the structure of the text, which the current verse divisions hide a little bit. The left column contains Moses 2 with my renumbering. The right column contains the original verse numbering so you can see where I have broken a verse apart or combined verses. Except for the first two verses and the phrases indicating the days of creation, every verse in my renumbered scheme begins with "And I, God". This creates a few new verses, and there are five instances where two verses are combined. I would like to emphasize these places were verses were combined because in each case a unique structure was created full of interesting parallels. Especially in the fourth day of creation my new verse structure highlights a beautiful chiasmus, which I will write about in another post.

Orson Pratt did a truly monumental work in dividing the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price into verses, but he was not the original author, nor did he know the original author, so there were subtleties in the text that he did not know about. So consider how I have changed the verses in Moses 2 below and try to see how it changes how we understand the chapter. Let me know what you learn.

Renumbered Verses	Original Numbering (Highlighted)
1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak.	1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak.
2 I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.	I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.
3 And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.	3 And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good.	4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good.
5 And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.	And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.
6 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake.	5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake;
7 And the evening and the morning were the first day.	and the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And again, I, God, said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and it was so, even as I spake; and I said: Let it divide the waters from the waters; and it was done;	6 And again, I, God, said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and it was so, even as I spake; and I said: Let it divide the waters from the waters; and it was done;
9 And I, God, made the firmament and divided the waters, yea, the great waters under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so even as I spake.	7 And I, God, made the firmament and divided the waters, yea, the great waters under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so even as I spake.
10 And I, God, called the firmament Heaven.	8 And I, God, called the firmament Heaven;
11 And the evening and the morning were the second day.	and the evening and the morning were the second day.
12 And I, God, said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and it was so.	9 And I, God, said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and it was so;
13 And I, God, said: Let there be dry land; and it was so.	and I, God, said: Let there be dry land; and it was so.
14 And I, God, called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, called I the Sea.	10 And I, God, called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, called I the Sea;
15 And I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good.	and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good.
16 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind.	11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind;
17 And I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good.	and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good;
18 And the evening and the morning were the third day.	13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.	14 And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.
20 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word.	16 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word.
21 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.	17 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness;
22 And I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good.	and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good;
23 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.	19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
24 And I, God, said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl which may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.	20 And I, God, said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl which may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
25 And I, God, created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind.	21 And I, God, created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind;
26 And I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.	and I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.
27 And I, God, blessed them, saying: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth.	22 And I, God, blessed them, saying: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth;
28 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.	23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
29 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so.	24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;
30 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind.	25 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind;
31 And I, God, saw that all these things were good.	and I, God, saw that all these things were good.
32 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.	26 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.
33 And I, God, said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.	And I, God, said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
34 And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.	27 And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.
35 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.	28 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
36 And I, God, said unto man: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which shall be the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein I grant life, there shall be given every clean herb for meat; and it was so, even as I spake.	29 And I, God, said unto man: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which shall be the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein I grant life, there shall be given every clean herb for meat; and it was so, even as I spake.
37 And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and, behold, all things which I had made were very good.	31 And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and, behold, all things which I had made were very good;
38 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.	and the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Interpreting Scriptures After the Fact

Anyone who has studied US Supreme Court decisions is familiar with the major landmark decisions. In these cases the court had to consider how to apply the text of the constitution to situations that were not considered when it was written. Sometimes in these cases the text of the constitution takes on added meaning as the application and interpretation evolves to accommodate changes in the country.

The US constitution is not the only text whose interpretation has changed throughout history. The Bible has even more than the constitution been interpreted and reinterpreted throughout history. Sometimes to the point that the original meaning is lost or forgotten in the haze of history. Knowing that this happens is the first step towards a fuller and richer understanding of the scriptures. To illustrate this I will consider how we interpret Psalm 72.

In the LDS version of the Bible the chapter heading for Psalm 72 reads:

David speaks of Solomon, who is made a type of the Messiah—He will have dominion—His name will endure forever—All nations will call him blessed—The whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord.

For the most part this is an accurate summary of the psalm but the summary explicitly draws a link between Solomon and the Messiah. But if we read the text of the psalm and just consider the text itself there is absolutely nothing in it that makes this connection. There is no explanatory or parenthetical text that explicitly states that the purpose of the psalm is to create an archetype of the Messiah. Just considering the text, all we can surmise is that King David was extolling the virtues and glory of his son Solomon. By itself there is nothing to suggest that David was speaking of Solomon as "a type of the Messiah".

We also have no statement from David explaining that he intended the psalm to be interpreted as referring to the coming Messiah. So where did we get the idea that the purpose of the psalm was to describe the Kingship of the future Messiah?

When I started considering this question I wondered if this was peculiar LDS interpretation of the Bible or if it had a broader acceptance. As I looked up different commentaries of Psalm 72 I noticed that about half mentioned that particular interpretation. So this idea is not limited to the LDS world. The more I looked into it I could tell that the idea had been around for quite some time. But still I was interested in where it had originated.

I looked into Jewish commentaries on Psalm 72 and discovered that Jewish scholars of the 15th and 16th centuries wrote extensively about the coming "King Messiah" as described in Psalm 72. These scholars took their cue from medieval Jewish scholars of the 11th and 12th centuries, who in turn took their interpretations from earlier commentaries. The idea can be traced back to the 1st century BC with the first written version of the Targum, which was a series of spoken explanations given by a Rabbi to help people who didn't know Hebrew to understand the scriptures. Beyond that the source of this interpretation comes from the oral commentary passed down from one Rabbi to another. Thus we can only place the origin of this idea sometime before the 1st century BC.

So while the idea that Psalm 72 "was designed to refer ultimately to the Messiah" is over 2000 years old, we have absolutely no evidence that King David intended that psalm to be interpreted in that way. It is possible that he did intend it that way, but then again it is entirely possible that he was writing a psalm for the future coronation of King Solomon, and nothing more. I should point out that even though this interpretation has a long history, it is by no means universally accepted. It's not that some commentators reject it, they just never mention it, or only mention it in passing. It is treated as one of a number of possible interpretations.

So while the LDS chapter heading states, "David speaks of Solomon, who is made a type of the Messiah" there is nothing in the text to suggest that the original purpose was to make "a type of the Messiah". It is entirely possible that the psalm was written solely for King Solomon and later generations used it to describe the coming King Messiah, as many scholars now do.

When we read the scriptures we should keep in mind that our interpretation of certain passages may be different from the original intent. This is not to say later interpretations are wrong, but we should be careful not to impose a particular interpretation on the original authors that they may have never intended. When we remember this we can begin to have a fuller understanding of the scriptures and how we read and interpret them.