Neil deGrasse Tyson

[DrEvil]

Returning to critics of GMO’s, Tyson suggested they target their attacks instead of painting the entire industry with a broad brush.

“If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-perennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing — and will continue to do — to nature so that it best serves our survival,” he advised. “That’s what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn’t, have gone extinct extinct.”

One can identify the tools by what they will not talk about.

GMO’s kill by interrupting the shikimate pathway of bacteria and this is of no small consequence to humans who depend on bacteria for digestion.

Until this fellow and his peers are willing to deal with the sensitive side of the issues, we can be assured that they are simply well paid globalist shills. Or stupid, your call.

Actually, it's Roundup (specifically glyphosate) that messes with the shikimate pathways, not the GMO's themselves. But hey - details schmetails.

[coffin_dodger]

Dr Evil said:

Using poetic language doesn't mean he's religious

I never said he is religious. I tried to convey (unsucessfully, I can see now) that science uses many mystiques and non-provable terms in it's language to explain away the intangibles and the inexplicable. Just like religion.

[Sounder]

Actually, it's Roundup (specifically glyphosate) that messes with the shikimate pathways, not the GMO's themselves. But hey - details schmetails.

Thank-you for the correction Dr. Evil, it's good to be reminded that the GMO's merely facilitate Monsanto's real cash crop, -chemicals.

[DrEvil]

^^You're welcome, and for the record I despise Monsanto as much as the next guy.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Dr.Evil:

Science is about learning new things. Religion is about preserving the status-quo and preventing new knowledge that could change that.

Science can certainly be about learning new things, yes.

But we've all observed rigid and/or dogmatic thinking of late by those subscribing to, or within the realm of, what is currently deemed 'science'.

Tyson -- at least in some of the quoted text in this thread -- appears to exude a certain arrogance and hubris (though perhaps to a lesser degree) along the lines of another fellow, uber-douchebag and staunch proponent of 'science', Richard Dawkins.

"Science" may well be -- if not already -- utilized as the new religion for today's largely secular era, complete with its share of dogmas and biases (which may have been along the lines of coffin_dodger's earlier post, though I surely don't presume to speak on his behalf.)

http://setsciencefree.org/

(Edit to also add: the position that Tyson offers a preferred 'alternative' to 'bible-thumper' rhetoric does not excuse him from criticism, of course. 2 wrongs don't make a right, etc blah blah..)

[82_28]

I don't give a fuck whether he'd be religious or not. His persona checks out as legit. What is problematic in my mind is that the reboot of COSMOS was chosen to be broadcast on FOX. Sagan in fact, turned me onto religion when I hated it. Yet, it wasn't "religion", it was respect and dare I say anti-war, anti-fascist etc. sentiments. Over the years I have come to disagree with Sagan on some philosphical points I held fast to. But what really bled through was acceptance. I think that is the whole point. We're all here on the pale blue dot. That was probably the most stirring passage of text ever written. So simple. Below essentially frames how I look at everything anymore -- just because it was written and I happened to read it (because I inhaled everything by Sagan all my life).

“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”

[DrEvil]

.

Dr.Evil:

Science is about learning new things. Religion is about preserving the status-quo and preventing new knowledge that could change that.

Science can certainly be about learning new things, yes.

But we've all observed rigid and/or dogmatic thinking of late by those subscribing to, or within the realm of, what is currently deemed 'science'.

Tyson -- at least in some of the quoted text in this thread -- appears to exude a certain arrogance and hubris (though perhaps to a lesser degree) along the lines of another fellow, uber-douchebag and staunch proponent of 'science', Richard Dawkins.

"Science" may well be -- if not already -- utilized as the new religion for today's largely secular era, complete with its share of dogmas and biases (which may have been along the lines of coffin_dodger's earlier post, though I surely don't presume to speak on his behalf.)

http://setsciencefree.org/

(Edit to also add: the position that Tyson offers a preferred 'alternative' to 'bible-thumper' rhetoric does not excuse him from criticism, of course. 2 wrongs don't make a right, etc blah blah..)

Yes, absolutely, some scientists could broaden their horizons a little and be less quick to dismiss other viewpoints, and there are plenty of legitimate concerns, like the current peer-review process, reproducibility of experiments and dogmatic thinking (And Richard Dawkins is a grade-A asshole, no doubt about it).

That said, what it really boils down to for me is simple: Science produces tangible results (medicine, computers, space travel (and big explosions)), religion doesn't (with some qualifications; religion can produce social change, for instance).

What really gets my goat is the more and more widespread idea that science is inherently bad, as spouted by young Earth creationists, conservative politicians and various vested interests, and the people who fall for their schtick (see: climate-change deniers), and the mindset that any science they disagree with is either corrupt or not real. It's infuriating.

And finally - my personal theory on why some scientists are turning into assholes is that they have to deal with delusional ding-bats who expect to be taken seriously when they say "Jesus rode dinosaurs", and the scientists are getting fed up with it. Not really an excuse, but scientists are people too.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

What really gets my goat is the more and more widespread idea that science is inherently bad, as spouted by young Earth creationists, conservative politicians and various vested interests, and the people who fall for their schtick (see: climate-change deniers), and the mindset that any science they disagree with is either corrupt or not real. It's infuriating.

And finally - my personal theory on why some scientists are turning into assholes is that they have to deal with delusional ding-bats who expect to be taken seriously when they say "Jesus rode dinosaurs", and the scientists are getting fed up with it. Not really an excuse, but scientists are people too.

.

Comical (yet tragic, as it is a representation of actual thoughts shared by a subset of humans.)

We're on the same page.

Though frankly I automatically dismiss such cartoonish thought-processes ('Jesus riding dinosaurs' and its variants) outright -- don't even consider them, as they are not worth considering. Such 'beliefs' are held by ignorant -- though largely well-intentioned -- folks that unfortunately have fallen prey to agendas managed by cynical beasts several layers removed from them, as part of an effort to thwart constructive dialogue and/or otherwise simply increase WHITE NOISE, ensuring progress remains stagnant.

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do

[coffin_dodger]

Dr Evil said:

What really gets my goat is the more and more widespread idea that science is inherently bad, as spouted by young Earth creationists, conservative politicians and various vested interests, and the people who fall for their schtick (see: climate-change deniers), and the mindset that any science they disagree with is either corrupt or not real. It's infuriating.

It becoming apparant that Western society, including this board, is becoming polarised along the lines of 'you are either with us, or you're one of them'.

I fall into none of the categories you describe above. I am extremely concerned about climate change and 'believe in it' completely. Also, I am not an Earth creationist, nor a conservative. However, I don't believe science will solve any of our fundamental problems. Science, for example, will not save us from climate change. The combined actions of human beings will save us from climate change. These kind of problems can only be solved by a conscious change in thinking amongst humans. Science seems occupied (at the moment) in keeping us from thinking about these travails, bearing in mind that the vast, vast majority of scientific breakthroughs are profit motivated and steered with this objective in mind. Science is offering no solutions to our most pressing social, climate or economic problems, yet it is held aloft (religion-like) as one of the greatest human tools.

I'm not anti-science - I just think it's given more kudos than it's due. I also think science has stagnated, similarly to our culture.

[norton ash]

What is problematic in my mind is that the reboot of COSMOS was chosen to be broadcast on FOX.

That's simply because FOX-filler Seth 'Family Guy-American Dad-Cleveland Show' McFarlane is Executive Producer of the reboot. Which is evidence that sometimes even a vulgar asshole can do the right thing.

[Sounder]

Well said dodger, well said.

Dr Evil wrote...

and the people who fall for their schtick (see: climate-change deniers)

Quick note;You are using a common propaganda technique of guilt by association. One need not be a ‘denier’ to see the politicized science, and the long term harm this does to real science. As Hal Lewis so ably relates.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/profes ... l-society/

Is Hal Lewis a covert young Earther?

[Jerky]

Damn. That Hal Lewis letter is strong and, quite frankly, somewhat convincing stuff. Especially the last line, which resonates quite strongly with the way I feel about the topic these days (after years of being on the bandwagon):

"This is not science; other forces are at work."

Am i crazy, or should the "skeptical minds" here at RigInt not be sympatico with such a stand? Or are some of us too dearly wed to our most beloved pet doom scenarios to leave them behind?

Jerky

[justdrew]

every single human who's ever used quotes could be "caught" believing false quotes. There are probably more fake quotes out there than real ones. Also, the congressional record and other sources are not sacrosanct, transcripts can easily be edited to fix someone's mispokenisms.

What's more the christian anti science crowed is undoubtedly about a hundred times ahead in the scoreboard of using cooked-quotes.

and finally, so what?

[seemslikeadream]

What's more the christian anti science crowed is undoubtedly about a hundred times ahead in the scoreboard of using cooked-quotes.

every single human who's ever used quotes could be "caught" believing false quotes. There are probably more fake quotes out there than real ones. Also, the congressional record and other sources are not sacrosanct, transcripts can easily be edited to fix someone's mispokenisms.

What's more the christian anti science crowed is undoubtedly about a hundred times ahead in the scoreboard of using cooked-quotes.

and finally, so what?

[Rory]

I don't get the NDeGT hate - the man is a legend. How many astrophysicists of color are there in the West? Especially with his sharp intellect and charisma.

If you just want to hate on a famous black man from NYC, then where's the thread critiquing Jay Z - a far more RI worthy subject and demonstrably one who has perpetrated much more harm to the human race.