Author Topic: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before  (Read 63064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38940
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #315 on: June 16, 2015, 11:36:26 PM »
Maybe not science or nature, instead computer science:

https://gizmodo.com/thirty-year-old-commodore-amiga-still-controls-heat-and-1711257091

I had an Amiga back in the day. Awesome machine.

We had one way after it's heyday. They were ahead of their time, and great for gaming. Ours would probably still work just fine if I could locate all of the parts.
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #316 on: June 17, 2015, 06:24:48 AM »
Evolution is bullshit, guys.

"Nothing evolved there has not been sufficient time even at 4 billion years.  Google the number of atoms in a 170 kg man.  Then divide that number by 4 billion.  Then by 365, then by 24, then by 60 and again by 60 and you will find the number of atoms per second that must collide and stick together to form a human being.  It stands to reason that an equal number collisions would occur not forming a man or anything.  Look around you do you see hunks of meat falling out of the sky every second.  Thats how large the number of atoms per second is.  evolution is bunk."


"I find it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creation. Life is far to complex to have ever evolved as so many species are interdependent on one another for survival. Parallel evolution of species to accommodate for this makes any chance of evolution being valid and impossibility. "


"interestingly enough genesis in the bible said the serpent was cursed to crawl around on its belly. what other kinds of things am i going to learn that correlate to what the bible already says. people that fabricate evolution with the intent of destroying the bible do so at their own peril as all of us are terminal in this world are going to meet the creator. "


"Well, well, well.  Science finally proves the Genesis Account of Creation once and for all and refuses to admit it!"


"They said they used a "computational method" to build a phylogenetic tree and call that proof of "Evolution".... by using that same method you can use the Card Catalog in your local library and show how all the Books in the Library "Evolved" into their current written texts and titles... Even go to Talk Origins and about the only benefits they list to the Theory of Evolution is how it has helped to organise books. Biologists used to be about 85% Atheist... now according to the latest poll results, they are only 17% of Biologist Scientists... seems once they looked at the actual data, they are abandoning and questioning their beliefs faster than rats leaving a sinking ship."


"Well duh!!! Where have you all been? Don't you read your Bible? In Genises satan appered to Eve as a snake and when God cursed the sake He said, "you wil now crawl on your belly." What does that sound like? They had feet!!! Amazing to me that science is just now catching up to the truth we have had all along. Evolution is a major hoax!!! God's word is absolute truth and if you read the Bible you will see that what science is proving now we have known as truth all along."


"Of the 6 basic concepts of evolution, only #6 Micro-Evolution (changes in kinds) has been observed and can be called science. The other five including Macro-evolution (cell to man) have never been seen and are believed by 'scientists' to exist. Sounds a lot like faith to me. The only observed, quantitative aspect of evolution proves no species changes into another. Period."


"So now the "scientists" agree with the Bible that the snake originally had feet."


- Fox News Comment Section
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 06:33:49 AM by Chino »

Offline Bolsters

  • Lost Boy
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5487
  • Gender: Male
  • What a hell of a day to embrace disorder
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #317 on: June 17, 2015, 06:29:44 AM »
I can't make sense of that at all. I must be sane.

Offline jasc15

  • Posts: 5022
  • Gender: Male
  • TTAL: Yeti welcome
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #318 on: June 17, 2015, 06:30:21 AM »
That's one fat man.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #319 on: June 17, 2015, 06:40:36 AM »
Why would anyone read the fox news comment section.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Zook

  • Evil Incarnate
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14144
  • Gender: Male
  • Take My Hand
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #320 on: June 17, 2015, 07:08:04 PM »
Is it OK to call that person a crackpot creationist?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #321 on: June 18, 2015, 07:54:55 AM »
Not sure whether this is the right thread for this, but you guys been following that the Pope will release an "encyclica" on global warming?
I don't agree with a lot of things in the Catholic Church, but this guy is at least trying to do the right thing.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Scorpion

  • Unreal Heir
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9908
  • Gender: Male
  • Ragnarök around the Clöck!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #322 on: June 18, 2015, 01:52:45 PM »
Yeah, I read about the Vatican being angry that it leaked.

It's released tomorrow, right?
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #323 on: June 18, 2015, 01:57:35 PM »
Pretty sure it was today actually.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #324 on: June 19, 2015, 09:05:25 AM »
Everything I read about or from Pope Francis makes me like him more, and I really hope his papacy signals a new direction for the Catholic Church. I really hope his followers, other Christians, even people of other faith and atheists like myself take his words on climate change to heart.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Dublagent66

  • Devouring consciousness...
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9695
  • Gender: Male
  • ...Digesting power
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #325 on: June 19, 2015, 09:32:40 AM »
Evolution is bullshit, guys.

Right, because the theory of creation has a much higher degree of probability.   :rollin
"Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -Albert Einstein
"There's not a pill you can take.  There's not a class you can go to.  Stupid is foreva."  -Ron White

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9599
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #326 on: June 19, 2015, 11:15:11 AM »
I'm having a hard time thinking of a word that is misused/misinterpreted more than the word 'theory' when it comes to railing against evolution.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5821
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #327 on: June 19, 2015, 11:19:27 AM »
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #328 on: June 19, 2015, 12:29:57 PM »
Evolution is bullshit, guys.

- Fox News Comment Section

Not saying I'm arguing for creationism or against evolution (I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian who votes conservative and believes in evolution) but what are you hoping to prove?   That 15 people have their own take on things?   One, why should that surprise you, and two, why isn't the fact that you (and others) are ridiculing them for drawing their own conclusions as "terrifying" as you previously called those ideas that you don't agree with? 

I can just as easily go to Moveon.org or some other liberal website and find as many comments that make absolutely zero factual sense in any permutation.  So what? 

Believe what you believe, teach your children to follow the facts and the best ideas will win out.  They always do (just not always on your timetable).   


Same sort of comment on the Pope.  I'm not sure what you (collective, not just Chino) expect him to do.  He has the ears and the minds of his faithful.  He is working on changing those minds.  It doesn't happen overnight, sometimes it doesn't even happen within a generation.  But every Pope Francis makes it harder and harder for the next Benedict to assert his will.   But we can't forget that he is a man of God and got to his position at least in part because of his unwavering faith.   So this may not seem like much to the 4% or so of world atheists, but it is a damn big deal for the 18% or so of world Catholics. 

I would also keep a little salt in my hand with some of the poll numbers.   Of course, if the goal is to ridicule those that don't share our ideas, the poll looks "terrifying", but I readily confess to hedging my answers on both evolution and global warming, not because I don't believe the science, or I am seeking to ignore the science, but because the science is being used politically.  I have no beef with the notion of global warming.   I personally think it is less than 100% manmade, but that's a quibble.  What I object to, and what is happening too regularly, and almost de facto, is that by conceding the science (there is an element of global warming that is man made) we also concede the politics (tax big corporations punitively, arbitrarily limit fossil fuels usage as opposed to advancing technology, and materially disadvantaging us on the global market).   There was a recent speech on the Senate floor (quoted here, I think) by one of the esteemed Senators from Rhode Island.  And in his speech - it was about 20 minutes - 3 minutes went to introduction, 5 minutes went to the science, and 12 minutes went right to all the controls, and taxes and tariffs and regulations and restrictions that had to go in place and anyone who said otherwise was a "denier" with their "heads in the sand".  That's equally "terrifying".   
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 12:37:27 PM by Stadler »

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #329 on: June 19, 2015, 12:31:04 PM »
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

I disagree. I think that is more a symptom than a cause. I don't think the detractors of evolution really care to understand any of it (as evidenced that you still get the knee-jerk answer "where's the missing link?!!", which was an issue in the early 20th century). So, jumping on the "theory" part really just means "ah, now I can stop thinking about it."
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #330 on: June 19, 2015, 12:36:52 PM »
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

I disagree. I think that is more a symptom than a cause. I don't think the detractors of evolution really care to understand any of it (as evidenced that you still get the knee-jerk answer "where's the missing link?!!", which was an issue in the early 20th century). So, jumping on the "theory" part really just means "ah, now I can stop thinking about it."

See my post above.  It's far more fun to make fun of the intelligence of the people we disagree with, but while calling on them to better understand your definition of "theory" (which I agree with, by the way) it might help to also call on ourselves to understand that we might have more traction if we separate the politics/religion from the science.  I think the Chinese call it gei mianzi (show respect for others "face") and liu mianzi (give others an opportunity to save their "face").   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #331 on: June 19, 2015, 12:49:16 PM »

Not saying I'm arguing for creationism or against evolution (I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian who votes conservative and believes in evolution) but what are you hoping to prove?   That 15 people have their own take on things?   One, why should that surprise you, and two, why isn't the fact that you (and others) are ridiculing them for drawing their own conclusions as "terrifying" as you previously called those ideas that you don't agree with? 



I'm sorry, but when someone says;

"Nothing evolved there has not been sufficient time even at 4 billion years.  Google the number of atoms in a 170 kg man.  Then divide that number by 4 billion.  Then by 365, then by 24, then by 60 and again by 60 and you will find the number of atoms per second that must collide and stick together to form a human being.  It stands to reason that an equal number collisions would occur not forming a man or anything.  Look around you do you see hunks of meat falling out of the sky every second.  Thats how large the number of atoms per second is.  evolution is bunk."

... that is truly terrifying. This person votes. This person will potentially have children (might already have them) one day. First off, can you even consider his little number game math? I'm not even sure what point he's trying to make, but I think he meant to use multiplication istead of division. Also, the genius doesn't have the slightest clue how atoms work or how they come together to form complex objects. He appears to believe that everything in the universe somehow magically comes into existance by the random colliding of atoms. They clearly have no idea what cell division is and think that atoms can randomly combine to form limbs in the sky. It pisses me off that people this stupid actually exist. We live in a period of time in which we have limitless access to knowledge and information. We can tap into the greatest minds in history with the click of a button. There is no evidence or research that is not obtainable and backed up time and time again. Yet, for whatever reason, people like this still dominate the polls in some states. People like this get pandered to and have their stupidity exploited by politicians and people like Alex Jones. Their view of reality is completely wrong. They think they are the informed ones and can proudly say they are not a sheep. They are stuck in this delusional fantasy where they get to approve the elements of science that make them feel good (and not die) while dismissing anything (in this case evolution) that may challenge their hopes for death not being the end.

I'm not trying to prove anything. We have a science and nature thread, and I posted something related to certain people's views of science and nature. This goes beyond me disagreeing with someone's ideas. We have so many brilliant people in this nation. People who dedicate their lives to solving problems and making sense of everything around us. People that get written off and can't have their voices heard because they are getting drowned out by the politicians and media folk who appease these retards for the sake of campaign contributiuons and ad revenue generation. It's disgusting.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 01:07:01 PM by Chino »

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #332 on: June 19, 2015, 01:45:57 PM »
People on both sides don't realize that evolution is a huge research progamme involving focal and auxiliary hypotheses supporting a global thesis (which cannot be directly supported by evidence). Problems occur when people think the global thesis is true because one of the focal elements is true (e.g. the peppered moth proves evolution!!), when people reject the global thesis because they reject one of its focal elements (e.g. theistic evolutionists who reject abiogenesis and thereby reject evolution), or when people think that affirming the global thesis requires accepting all of its focal elements (e.g. again, thinking evolution requires abiogenesis). One can "believe in evolution" generally yet disbelieve several chapters of the Grand Evolutionary Story.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Dublagent66

  • Devouring consciousness...
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9695
  • Gender: Male
  • ...Digesting power
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #333 on: June 19, 2015, 03:54:25 PM »
I'm having a hard time thinking of a word that is misused/misinterpreted more than the word 'theory' when it comes to railing against evolution.

Well, it goes both ways, not just evolution.  But the meaning of that word is fairly simple and straight forward.  Where does the hard part come in regarding misuse and misinterpretation?  Science and nature exist.  That is fact.  How things came into existence can only be theorized and not fully proven beyond a shadow of doubt.  At least not at this point.  In that context, the word "theory" is very appropriate.  Just a theory... :lol
"Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -Albert Einstein
"There's not a pill you can take.  There's not a class you can go to.  Stupid is foreva."  -Ron White

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9599
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #334 on: June 19, 2015, 04:30:37 PM »
The issue is that some people use it to mean "made up" to discredit something whereas, if I remember correctly, a theory is the highest you can label something in science outside of being proven completely true. There may be a range of how close to reality a theory is but I'm pretty sure nothing gets that label without some serious hard evidence that backs it up.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #335 on: June 19, 2015, 06:24:13 PM »
People believe the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are synonyms.

Offline Zook

  • Evil Incarnate
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14144
  • Gender: Male
  • Take My Hand
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #336 on: June 19, 2015, 10:22:52 PM »

Not saying I'm arguing for creationism or against evolution (I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian who votes conservative and believes in evolution) but what are you hoping to prove?   That 15 people have their own take on things?   One, why should that surprise you, and two, why isn't the fact that you (and others) are ridiculing them for drawing their own conclusions as "terrifying" as you previously called those ideas that you don't agree with? 



I'm sorry, but when someone says;

"Nothing evolved there has not been sufficient time even at 4 billion years.  Google the number of atoms in a 170 kg man.  Then divide that number by 4 billion.  Then by 365, then by 24, then by 60 and again by 60 and you will find the number of atoms per second that must collide and stick together to form a human being.  It stands to reason that an equal number collisions would occur not forming a man or anything.  Look around you do you see hunks of meat falling out of the sky every second.  Thats how large the number of atoms per second is.  evolution is bunk."

... that is truly terrifying. This person votes. This person will potentially have children (might already have them) one day. First off, can you even consider his little number game math? I'm not even sure what point he's trying to make, but I think he meant to use multiplication istead of division. Also, the genius doesn't have the slightest clue how atoms work or how they come together to form complex objects. He appears to believe that everything in the universe somehow magically comes into existance by the random colliding of atoms. They clearly have no idea what cell division is and think that atoms can randomly combine to form limbs in the sky. It pisses me off that people this stupid actually exist. We live in a period of time in which we have limitless access to knowledge and information. We can tap into the greatest minds in history with the click of a button. There is no evidence or research that is not obtainable and backed up time and time again. Yet, for whatever reason, people like this still dominate the polls in some states. People like this get pandered to and have their stupidity exploited by politicians and people like Alex Jones. Their view of reality is completely wrong. They think they are the informed ones and can proudly say they are not a sheep. They are stuck in this delusional fantasy where they get to approve the elements of science that make them feel good (and not die) while dismissing anything (in this case evolution) that may challenge their hopes for death not being the end.

I'm not trying to prove anything. We have a science and nature thread, and I posted something related to certain people's views of science and nature. This goes beyond me disagreeing with someone's ideas. We have so many brilliant people in this nation. People who dedicate their lives to solving problems and making sense of everything around us. People that get written off and can't have their voices heard because they are getting drowned out by the politicians and media folk who appease these retards for the sake of campaign contributiuons and ad revenue generation. It's disgusting.


POTY

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #337 on: June 20, 2015, 08:40:24 AM »
People on both sides don't realize that evolution is a huge research progamme involving focal and auxiliary hypotheses supporting a global thesis (which cannot be directly supported by evidence). Problems occur when people think the global thesis is true because one of the focal elements is true (e.g. the peppered moth proves evolution!!), when people reject the global thesis because they reject one of its focal elements (e.g. theistic evolutionists who reject abiogenesis and thereby reject evolution), or when people think that affirming the global thesis requires accepting all of its focal elements (e.g. again, thinking evolution requires abiogenesis). One can "believe in evolution" generally yet disbelieve several chapters of the Grand Evolutionary Story.

H, i think you're kidding yourself on that part.  What you describe there as "Evolution" sounds like a disparate collection of small hypotheses that get stuck together into this somewhat artificial grand hypotheses. That way of viewing evolution may make it easy for you to plug in your favorite counter-theory, but as i said, that's not how evolution, or science, works. The two can not be separated, because at this point, barring minor points of discussions at the fringes, all branches of science are heavily interlocked. They all agree on that "grand story", and they all do with completely different evidence. So, by saying "I don't believe in the grand story", yoiu are rejecting physics, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc, all in one swoop.
Just to give an example here,  there are animals across the world that are quite similar in genetic code (a finding from biology). You can estimate backwards based on the average number of mutations per millennium how long ago they shared the same ancestor. Well, however that doesn't answer how those animals could even share the same code, given how they are separated by vast bodies of water.
Separately you got the physical finding that the tectonic plates are slowly moving. And also the finding that the rocks on the Eastern coast of the US are the same makeup as the ones on the West African coast.
Well, now you calculate back when those two continents were connected. And lo anbd behold, it is the same timeframe that the genetics calculation gave. Which now corroborates, from two totally separate arms oif investigation, that at some point the tectonic plates formed one big object, and the animals roamed freely on it.
Comes in geology and paleontology (fossils), who with even more different evidence come to the same conclusion.
So, when you reject Evolution, you reject all science essentially.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 09:05:10 AM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5821
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #338 on: June 20, 2015, 10:10:45 AM »
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

I disagree. I think that is more a symptom than a cause. I don't think the detractors of evolution really care to understand any of it (as evidenced that you still get the knee-jerk answer "where's the missing link?!!", which was an issue in the early 20th century). So, jumping on the "theory" part really just means "ah, now I can stop thinking about it."

I suppose that can be true too. If there's a cause to something that involves lack of effort (not necessarily implying laziness but that's a different theory of mine ey) by humans, it's probably likely.

I'm going to post that quote from NDT about the Big Bang Theory he said when he spoke at my college a couple years ago. I love how he explained how scientific paradigms worked.

Asker: Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Tyson: There's no "belief". Science is not about "belief". Okay? Is there evidence, or is there not evidence? If there's evidence, then the evidence does the talking. That's really how this works. So, you look at the evidence in support of the universe having once been hotter, occupying a smaller volume of space yesterday than today, run the clock back, finding out that all the motion in the universe points back to a single time and a single place, and that was 13.8 billion years ago. All of our evidence points to that. That's the Big Bang. If there's a new theory that comes out that replaces the Big Bang, it WILL have the Big Bang as an element of it. It'll just be a deeper understanding of what's going on. That's how science works. That's how it's always worked since the modern methods and tools of science were brought to bare on questions of the natual world, which is basically the last 400 years.

So in other words, we can say that Newton was wrong, once Einstein's Relativity came on the scene, but that's not the right way to think about it. What happened is that Newton's laws of motion and laws of gravity were replaced by Special Relativity and General Relativity. They are more accurate descriptions of reality, especially at high speeds and high scources of gravity--things that Newton had no exposure to. A fast running horse, that's as fast as they ever go, all right? So, what you find is that if you put low gravity and low speeds in Einstein's equations, they become Newton's equations. It is the slow speed limit of Einstein's equation. So we didn't want to have some idea, and now we're all over here, "That's not that anymore; it's this!" No. No. This was true. It was experimentally verified to be true. Then when more conditions were tested, it failed under those other conditions but still works under the conditions it was previously tested. So here's the sphere of Newton's influence. Einstein's influence is a bigger sphere enclosing Newton.

So. So much evidence is in support of the Big Bang, like I said, any theory that replaces it will just be a bigger understand of reality, of which the Big Bang would be a part--such as the multiverse. The Big Bang is like an afterthought in the multiverse. The multiverse is pumping universes in and out of existence daily, and we would just be one of those bubbles. So there are people working on that as a consequence of the quantum fluctuations of the fabric of space and time in the universe. So it's not a matter of belief.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 10:16:43 AM by Implode »

Offline jasc15

  • Posts: 5022
  • Gender: Male
  • TTAL: Yeti welcome
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #339 on: June 20, 2015, 10:31:20 AM »
Tyson: There's no "belief". Science is not about "belief". Okay? Is there evidence, or is there not evidence? If there's evidence, then the evidence does the talking.

There is an effort to make it about one belief versus another.  It is just not that way.  It's not creationism versus evolution.  It's belief versus evidence.

Edit:This thread may seem to be going into PR territory, but I think this tangent is very much about defining what science is, and what it is not.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #340 on: June 21, 2015, 11:56:22 AM »
I still think an important point is being missed; well, a couple important points.

- one, the great thing about a "democracy" (such that it is here in the States) is that people CAN be delusional.  They get that right.  Someone can vote for the candidate that rejects evolutionary science just like someone can vote for a President on the grounds that he will make all gasoline free (Google it; I saw that interview with my own two eyes when it aired) or any number of other things that are less controversial but no less in keeping with the "facts".

- As much as I like NDT, in my opinion he's a little tone deaf on this issue.  Beating people over the head with the "science" - and by result, asking them to rethink and recalibrate the very core of their being and their world view - then ridiculing them for not seeing the facts he sees and incorporating them in the same way he has is asking a lot.   I get it; I have taken too many graduate level science and theology classes to count, and I understand the science as well as someone who doesn't work in the field, and doesn't have a ton of interest in it can.   Yet it was an EXTREMELY intense process to incorporate that with my faith.   I think I've come to some balance, and as a general premise, there is room in my faith to accommodate "all that science I don't understand" (thank, Bernie) but I think there ought to be a little more understanding for those for whom the science is beyond them and yet have the same struggles with mortality and spirituality and existence that everyone else does. 


Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #341 on: June 21, 2015, 03:02:08 PM »
I think NDT's somewhat aggressive stance is really an outcome of how science has been over the last few decades relegated to "just another opinion, as valid as what I read in Us magazine about biology". Science had become a playball for politicians, to be manipulated and used to their liking. I think NDT is good in the sense that he gives science some teeth.
Regarding some people's battles over how to integrate scientific knowledge into their current worldview, is that really science's issue? I don't see why science should be apologetic or accommodating to concepts that, from a scientific point of view, are simply wrong. I liked what the Dalai Lama said not so long ago: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism needs to change".
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 03:08:58 PM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9599
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #342 on: June 21, 2015, 06:46:19 PM »
Regarding the Dali Lama that's really interesting to hear. Are there any other religious leaders that feel the same?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #343 on: June 21, 2015, 08:11:26 PM »
I think NDT's somewhat aggressive stance is really an outcome of how science has been over the last few decades relegated to "just another opinion, as valid as what I read in Us magazine about biology". Science had become a playball for politicians, to be manipulated and used to their liking. I think NDT is good in the sense that he gives science some teeth.
Regarding some people's battles over how to integrate scientific knowledge into their current worldview, is that really science's issue? I don't see why science should be apologetic or accommodating to concepts that, from a scientific point of view, are simply wrong. I liked what the Dalai Lama said not so long ago: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism needs to change".

Or it's about the fact that relatively speaking, NDT is considered something of a "rock star" for his position. 

It's not science's issue.  Science should continue to be science.  But science doesn't happen on the front page of magazines, or on television in prime time.  In that sense, it isn't "science" we're talking about, but advocacy.    Hell I AGREE with Tyson, but even I'm like, dude, give me the science, save me the lecture.   Bill Nye is another one.  Used to LOVE LOVE LOVE that guy.   Now, not so much.  Posting Facebook posts with a map of Tropical Storm Bill and saying - snarkily - something to the effect of "what was that about Global Warming again"?  Reprehensible, because it's "science" and we're supposed to accept his point and reject all others, but there's actually little data that shows "extreme weather" events are a) more extreme or b) more frequent that in past decades.   So if they're so right and so sure, why the need to fuzz the data?  I thought this was about FACTS and SCIENCE?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #344 on: June 21, 2015, 08:22:17 PM »
BTW, I'm not too big a fan of NDT either. I wish he could convince more through charisma like Carl Sagan did, but I also realize that scientists with TV charisma don't grow on trees. So, I take NDT for what he is, and am happy that there is a push to get science more active exposure.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #345 on: June 24, 2015, 10:06:51 AM »
This is an incredibly well-done infographic by Bloomberg on global warming:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Worth sharing.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #346 on: June 24, 2015, 10:19:47 AM »
That was really interesting to see.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #347 on: June 24, 2015, 10:35:34 AM »
They conviniently left rise in gay marriages out of the graph.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #348 on: June 24, 2015, 11:02:08 AM »
It's interesting, but anyone who didn't know where it was going after the first graph is an idiot.  And of course, since even NASA can't stay out of the political discussion, what was the last line?  You got it:  "The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it." 


Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
« Reply #349 on: June 24, 2015, 11:06:05 AM »
I think it's really lamentable how NASA's *scientific* conclusions are now considered "political" because certain politicians have decided to ignore any science and just make up stuff they know will please their constituency and sponsors.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."