For the most part I agree with him - the problem is NDT acts as if science is never wrong, or that it always has the correct answer. The reality is it is an informed guessing game that gets more accurate as time (and data) are accumulated, but I've seen him suggest, over and over, that doubting scientific findings somehow makes you a science hater, ignorant, etc.
He's literally as dogmatic about science as the religious zealots are about their religion.
So while I agree with him, for the most part, I understand why there are those who have doubts about some scientific claims.
I don't really think that's what he's saying.For the most part I agree with him - the problem is NDT acts as if science is never wrong, or that it always has the correct answer. The reality is it is an informed guessing game that gets more accurate as time (and data) are accumulated, but I've seen him suggest, over and over, that doubting scientific findings somehow makes you a science hater, ignorant, etc.
He's literally as dogmatic about science as the religious zealots are about their religion.
So while I agree with him, for the most part, I understand why there are those who have doubts about some scientific claims.
Agreed, I wasn't talking about just this video, but his views in general.I don't really think that's what he's saying.
He would probably claim that the scientific method is the best means of determining physical truths. I think history tends to agree with that stance. He would probably also admit that different scientific questions have differing levels of attention and rigor applied to answering them. There is a reason that doctors don't spring into action after the very first published study of a new drug. And there's a reason that only study designs of a certain standard are acceptable when determining drug efficacy and safety.
But some questions have been subjected to tremendous scientific scrutiny and rigor. At this point, to deny gravity is not to deny a specific scientific claim; it's a denial of the entire scientific method that ultimately resulted in what NDT is calling "emergent truth." The same applies to evolution, anthropogenic climate change, and the Earth having a spherical shape. To deny the method without proposing a superior way of answering these questions is flawed thinking. To deny emergent truths in order to avoid real conversations is cowardice.
So I don't think he'd argue that science always has the answer. But I think he'd argue that science has the best blueprint for finding the answer.
Haha, okay.He is speaking the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. Whether convenient to your ideology or not.
It's tough being a thoroughbred in a herd of donkeys....Haha, okay.
Still bitter about Pluto?Never liked his attitude. His is not the one to build excitement in science. Carl Sagan, he is not.
Weak sauce, brah.He is speaking the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. Whether convenient to your ideology or not.
Yup, but Carl Sagan was thrilled by the wonders of science. NDT is fascinated by the politics of science.Still bitter about Pluto?
he is not closed down to competing ideas. saying the world is 6,000 years old, or that intelligent design is responsible for creation, or that homeopathy works is not a competing idea.I have no problem with his advocacy. It's being closed down, outright hostile, to competing ideas that grates on me.
The very foundation is true science is that there are no sacred ideas. Literally everything is subject to question and challenge. The goal is always a better fact-based explanation.
Trying to insult or berate people into supporting your view is absolutely counter to that.
I grew up in the 60's and 70's too, and evolution was taught as a theory....of course I was educated in those backward out of date schools provided on military bases.He is speaking the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. Whether convenient to your ideology or not.
Yeah, I assume he must mean closed down to "competing" non-scientific ideas? Otherwise the statement makes no sense.he is not closed down to competing ideas. saying the world is 6,000 years old, or that intelligent design is responsible for creation, or that homeopathy works is not a competing idea.
evolution is a theory. a lot of folks now a days seem to conflate theory with idea.I grew up in the 60's and 70's too, and evolution was taught as a theory....of course I was educated in those backward out of date schools provided on military bases.
isaac asimov said:"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."