Neil deGrasse Tyson

[PortlandDangler]

I can only imagine the questions Noory is going to ask. "Are you related to Lando?" I'm not sure if tonight is his first time on C2C?

[coaster]

 I'm really surprised hes on tonight. Him and Kaku. Brilliant minds talking to a damned grade school student with a radio show. Why do they bother..This is a perfect example of why Art needs a show. Noory has no business interviewing neil degrasse tyson. noory is mindfucked when someone pulls a coin from his ear. its absurd.

[Eddie Coyle]

 
        He'll do better than Ian did, that's for sure. Punnett's interview with Tyson was one of the most awkward, cringe inducing exercises. He kept saying "he makes science cool"...gee, why's that,Ian?  It was the most patronizing three hours...painful. Kept waiting for Ian to ask him if he knew Sidney Poitier or who his favorite basketball player was. He's a man, Ian -not a mystical being from beyond.

[PortlandDangler]

I'm really surprised hes on tonight. Him and Kaku. Brilliant minds talking to a damned grade school student with a radio show. Why do they bother..This is a perfect example of why Art needs a show. Noory has no business interviewing neil degrasse tyson. noory is mindfucked when someone pulls a coin from his ear. its absurd.

Get ready for a night of Noory letting the guest talk which may not be a bad thing.

[Usagi]

Tyson won't suffer a fool.  I'm sure Jorch has been warned.





I think I'll try to tune in for this.  It likely will be a Noory-barely-says-a-damn-word night, but I can't decide if that's a good thing or not.  He'll probably only risk some dumbass non-statement running into a break when Tyson has no way to respond.


Hey, Jorch, ask Neil about abiotic oil.  Please.  Pleeeaaaassseeee.

[The General]

Tyson won't suffer a fool.  I'm sure Jorch has been warned.

I like Neil, but this is just arrogant.
Remember Pluto?

Science is not necessarily true 'whether or not you believe in it.'  That flies in the face of the scientific method itself, where theories change and evolve as we get more information.  Scientists used to believe all sorts of things that aren't accepted as truths anymore, and I'm sure that a lot of what we accept as science today will change as new discoveries are made.

[Usagi]

Remember Pluto?

Science is not necessarily true 'whether or not you believe in it.'  That flies in the face of the scientific method itself, where theories change and evolve as we get more information.  Scientists used to believe all sorts of things that aren't accepted as truths anymore, and I'm sure that a lot of what we accept as science today will change as new discoveries are made.

There's nothing to disagree with in what you've said.  However, in response to a comment about two people not believing in evolution, I think it's a perfect statement.  People need to be called out when they are saying something fucking stupid, just like Jorch and the abiotic oil business.  But, in any case, he said "science" is true whether or not you believe in it... not such and such fact.


Ack.  I don't get into these discussions on the internets.  I need to go hide now.

[The General]

Ack.  I don't get into these discussions on the internets.  I need to go hide now.

Hey it was fun!
Don't run away. 
Good points.

[b_dubb]

Tyson is someone for whom science has become a religion

[onan]

Science isn't dogma. However people in general and sometimes specifically are dogmatic.

[somatichypermutation]

Science is like any other human endeavor, marked by a alot of hubris and misses but punctuated with an overall movement to the right answer.  The problem is scientists are as tribal as any other human group, and resist change even more than others, so science is just really damn slow.

[Sardondi]

Science is like any other human endeavor, marked by a alot of hubris and misses but punctuated with an overall movement to the right answer.  The problem is scientists are as tribal as any other human group, and resist change even more than others, so science is just really damn slow.

Science isn't dogma. However people in general and sometimes specifically are dogmatic.

Tyson is someone for whom science has become a religion.

I like Neil, but this is just arrogant.
Remember Pluto?

Science is not necessarily true 'whether or not you believe in it.'  That flies in the face of the scientific method itself, where theories change and evolve as we get more information.  Scientists used to believe all sorts of things that aren't accepted as truths anymore, and I'm sure that a lot of what we accept as science today will change as new discoveries are made.

Well said, each of you.

[coaster]

Tyson is someone for whom science has become a religion

really? absurd.just absurd.

[Falkie2013]

I'm really surprised hes on tonight. Him and Kaku. Brilliant minds talking to a damned grade school student with a radio show. Why do they bother..This is a perfect example of why Art needs a show. Noory has no business interviewing neil degrasse tyson. noory is mindfucked when someone pulls a coin from his ear. its absurd.

More like someone pulls it out of somewhere else. Snoory's too dumb to know the difference and wouldn't notice.

Or would say " hey, I've seen clowns do that ! Do you know I'm afraid of clowns ? "

[coaster]

point?
why quote me when you have nothing to say? were hating on scientists now? this is one ill skip out on.
edit. shit im tired of editing my posts..post something and let it be.

[Falkie2013]

point?
why quote me when you have nothing to say? were hating on scientists now? this is one ill skip out on.

I typed it. I dunno where it went. I was not hating on the scientist. I enjoyed HIS part of the show for the most part.

[Sardondi]

really? absurd.just absurd.

I understood it to mean that there comes a point when even science does not know. Now how many, Tyson included, have the intellectual honesty to say,"Because we do not know the origins of all things, we must accept the possibility the universe was the result of creation"? Theories of origin are taken on faith. And few of them have the honesty to admit it.

[stevesh]

Theories of origin are taken on faith. And few of them have the honesty to admit it.

Scientific theories of anything are taken on observation and testing, I think. The aspect of creation that offends whatever scientist is in me is that it's too easy. No proof, experimentation or method necessary. Here's your answer - accept what I (or my Book) tell you or (literally, in too many cases) go to hell.

[stevesh]

I can only imagine the questions Noory is going to ask. "Are you related to Lando?" I'm not sure if tonight is his first time on C2C?

As least Noory didn't ask if the guest is related to Mike.

[PortlandDangler]

As least Noory didn't ask if the guest is related to Mike.

That would have been classic if he did.

[Sardondi]

Scientific theories of anything are taken on observation and testing, I think. The aspect of creation that offends whatever scientist is in me is that it's too easy. No proof, experimentation or method necessary...

You're arguing a point I didn't make; you're making an irrelevant argument; you're missing the point; and helping make it too. Origins.Can't.Be.Proven. The only way for someone to say one theory is better than another is for assumptions to be made. It is sheer bias to reject a creation event out of hand because no one can say it didn't happen. Surely you recognize the distinction between positively saying something occurred, and saying something can't be ruled out. I'm just astounded at the moral and intellectual cowardice of those scientists who don't have the courage or the character to say, "We can't say this didn't happen." My point is they don't do it out of their own bias, fear of disfavor in their community, or because of "fashion" or philosophical trendiness. Because logically it simply can't be defended. The inability to recognize or the unwillingness to admit the possibility of a creation event does not speak well for anyone, much less those who profess a devotion to science or a search for truth. 

[onan]

You're arguing a point I didn't make; you're making an irrelevant argument; you're missing the point; and helping make it too. Origins.Can't.Be.Proven. The only way for someone to say one theory is better than another is for assumptions to be made. It is sheer bias to reject a creation event out of hand because no one can say it didn't happen. Surely you recognize the distinction between positively saying something occurred, and saying something can't be ruled out. I'm just astounded at the moral and intellectual cowardice of those scientists who don't have the courage or the character to say, "We can't say this didn't happen." My point is they don't do it out of their own bias, fear of disfavor in their community, or because of "fashion" or philosophical trendiness. Because logically it simply can't be defended. The inability to recognize or the unwillingness to admit the possibility of a creation event does not speak well for anyone, much less those who profess a devotion to science or a search for truth.

I think science... and I realize I am speaking for a whole bunch of people, just isn't happy with the finality of "god did it". Whether one supposes it is cowardice or civility to acknowledge a spiritual side, I can't say for anyone else. But For me... fuck the I-think-god-did-it crowd.

[thefamilyghost]

The ratio of "how much time people think scientists spend thinking about the existence of god" to "how much time scientists actually spend thinking about the existence of god" is absurdly large. It's actually really funny.

[Falkie2013]

Snoory problem thinks of the solar system and the universe looking like this.





www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SOEryVVR9k


Or maybe he had a class like this one when he was a child and still thinks of the universe in this manner.

Mrs. Pantelis' EC4A Class



teacherweb.com/FL/Nativity/MrsPantelis

Our “onefish, two fish, red fish, blue fish” pictures are complete and labeled and wecan ... We made TWO Cat in the Hat hats, one to wearand one to eat! ...


In LanguageArts, we will be designing solar systems with Play-Doh and ...


In Floor Toys, we will be putting together a solar system floor puzzleand using Tinker Toys to ...

[attachment deleted by admin]

[thefamilyghost]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, Dr. Tyson has the role of diplomat, so he cannot answer the way many would like to respond, that is, "why the fuck are you wasting my time asking me about god? let's talk about physics".

[thefamilyghost]

Dr. Brian Greene recently came to my school to pitch string theory and how it is really nice despite not having any experimental verification. After his talk he took questions and the very last one came from some guy who sounded so much like one of Snoory's fanboys "I think you are awesome. You are the most enlightened being on the planet etc etc, what do you think of the idea of the grand architect?" or something close to that. At that point a collective groan arose from the audience. A lot of people might think that people groaned because they were a bunch of god-hating physicists in the audience. But most likely they groaned because it is a waste of time to pose that question and what the fuck does it matter what Brian Greene thinks about god? It doesn't matter at all. Ask him about his work for crying out loud.

[Sardondi]

I think science... and I realize I am speaking for a whole bunch of people, just isn't happy with the finality of "god did it". Whether one supposes it is cowardice or civility to acknowledge a spiritual side, I can't say for anyone else. But For me... fuck the I-think-god-did-it crowd.

Okay. Let me try one.more.time. to make this clear. Nowhere have I said "god did it". I have said that no one can't say the beginning of everything was not a creation. Why is this so hard to understand? People seem to be filtering my posts through their own biases and opinions, and are arguing some other issue than what I'm addressing. Surely you see the distinction, as well as the importance of the distinction. Because if you of all people don't, there's simply no hope for rational discourse, and it becomes shouting down and drowning out anyone who disagrees with the preferred narrative of the moment.

[onan]

Okay. Let me try one.more.time. to make this clear. Nowhere have I said "god did it". I have said that no one can't say the beginning of everything was not a creation. Why is this so hard to understand? People seem to be filtering my posts through their own biases and opinions, and are arguing some other issue than what I'm addressing. Surely you see the distinction, as well as the importance of the distinction. Because if you of all people don't, there's simply no hope for rational discourse, and it becomes shouting down and drowning out anyone who disagrees with the preferred narrative of the moment.

Perhaps I too hastily read your other post. And most certainly I come with a full set of biases. I guess my question is, how fine a hair are we splitting? Ok no direct reference to god. Creation in and of itself does imply some intent; intent isn't as far as I know, bestowed on inanimate objects. So if you aren't suggesting some form of superior being, I am at a loss. But for the sake of conversation, I do agree that knowing what came before the "big bang" is anyone's guess. Again for the sake of conversation, I can't rule out any kind of creator, because I don't know. Perhaps I need to broaden my definition of creator.

[Sardondi]

You don't see the distinction in an assertion of fact ("Origins are the result of a creative act), as opposed to mere recognition of possibility because contrary proof is lacking ("We can't prove that origins aren't the result of creation")? Because they are distinct statements. The first is an opinion; the second is a fact based on absence of proof to the contrary. You can have any opinion about the origin of things which you want, but to have any intellectual legitimacy you must admit that as far as our ability to prove anything goes, creation cannot be discarded as a possibility. It's a simple matter. It's not a trick question. And by admitting it, your standing, if any, in Atheists of America will still be good. But those who can't bring themselves to admit it can't claim to be unbiased.

Maybe I should have tried this in terms of sets, nulls, intersection and all that.

[RealCool Daddio]

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]