Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Truth, and the Future of America
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
That's my point. Future science will inevitably come along and dispute a lot previous science. Heck, there's still a lot we don't know about one of the fundamental forces of nature - gravity.
That's my entire point. Anyone (like the quote above from NDT) who tells other people that "this is true whether you want it to be or not," is speaking like a charlatan.
A few years ago Dr. James Gates found computer code embedded in string theory & supersymetric systems. We're only beginning to learn who we are and how we're here. The more we think we know, the less we know. That doesn't mean we should or shouldn't blindly accept or deny today's scientific truths, it just means we should all be a lot more skeptical to both sides of any argument.
Last edited:
Yes it is.
Anyone who even hints that man might not be the sole or even main reason for climate change is ostracized.
I'm not ready to say man is or isn't. Today's politics surrounding the discussion is based on fear that we might be responsible. And we might be, we very well might be the main reason, but anyone who believes that science has already come to that conclusion is blind or has an agenda.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Are you suggesting that there can be no such thing as truth because, at some unspecified point in the future, our understanding of a phenomenon may or may not change?
Hmmm....I guess I should have emphasized the fact-based qualification more heavily.
How my statement got assumed into equating competing scientific ideas with religiously-based dogma is also puzzling, and not a little bit irritating.
While I have stated several times on this forum that I believe in God, I have also stated equal numbers of times that I am not a religious zealot.
The kind of assumptions my liberal brethren make from that illustrate the very simplistic binary / 1s and 0s / black or white / good or bad thinking that they so deplore (word intentionally chosen) about people with whom they disagree.
The distinction between an idea and a scientific argument is critical, and one not lost on me.
Please don't assume that it is simply because that's the easy thing to do. It's a bad look.
Last edited:
first of all being ostracized and being accused of treason are not the same thing.
second, that climate change is not caused by humans is not really a "competing idea". there are very few actual climate scientists who think that climate change is not caused by humans. there are a lot of cranks who pass themselves off as experts who try to push this idea and a large amount of folks who buy it.
the examples i gave were general one's about what usually gets trotted out as competing ideas that are dismissed out of hand. i was not implying that you held those ideas. please don't assume that i was because that's the easy thing to do. it's a bad look
what fact-based competing ideas do you think ndt is dismissing?
Dr. Tyson is quite proud of what science knows and is hardly humble of what science doesn't know. For a dogmatic science educator, anomalies are to be ignored or are a product of sloppy observation. To a true scientist, anomalies are itches that need to be scratched.
This is one is still an ongoing debate on quantum physics.
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585
This is one is still an ongoing debate on quantum physics.
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585
I've seen that double slit experiment a few times and still dont understand why that happens. I'm not sure anybody really does at this point. This goes back to when Einstein and Bohr disagreed on quantum physics. Einstein once asked Bohr if he really believed the moon was not there if it wasn't being observed.
I'm just curious, upon what are you basing this assessment of NDT's character?
This is a message board. You've been on it for years. You should know what hyperbole is.
And tbh, in certain circles, it's actually treated similarly. You go against the grain regarding CC at all and you must have a political agenda that doesn't line up with everyone else in the circle.
The point is to be skeptical of all findings. Both those that back up your position and those that go against it. This shouldn't be a controversial point. NDT never seems to have a skeptical bone in his body unless it's something that goes against his line of reasoning or thinking or findings.
That isn't a controversial point, I agree.
Now, I've seen his reboot of Cosmos and have listened to some of his podcasts -- I've only heard NDT speak about well-researched and established scientific conclusions (minus a few astrophysics-y things on his podcast where he admits uncertainty in the field). Feigning skepticism when talking about evolution, the age of the earth, or anthropogenic climate change is unreasonable and dishonest. Simply because he chooses not to publicly advocate issues that are largely unsettled does not mean he lacks skepticism, and honestly, it's pretty silly to suggest that.
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 0
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-