Neil deGrasse Tyson

[coffin_dodger]

Rory said:

If you just want to hate on a famous black man from NYC...

I'm a racist for disliking DeGrasse?

Pathetic.

And you don't even realise you're the one making it a racist issue.

[seemslikeadream]

there are people in the U.S. that are covert racists and by linking to one of their sites is the problem

Sean Davis
Sean Davis is a co-founder of The Federalist and also serves as COO of Media Trackers, a non-profit government watchdog. He previously worked as an economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn. He was named by The Hill as one of the top congressional staffers under the age of 35 for his role in spearheading the enactment of the law that created USASpending.gov. Sean received a BBA in finance from Texas Tech University and an MBA in finance and entrepreneurial management from the Wharton School.

Robert Tracinski
Robert Tracinski is a senior writer at The Federalist. He studied philosophy at the University of Chicago and for more than 20 years has written about politics, markets, and foreign policy. He has been published in dozens of newspapers, from the Chicago Tribune to the San Francisco Chronicle, and been featured on many radio and television shows, from Rush Limbaugh to “The O’Reilly Factor.” He is also a contributor to RealClearMarkets and editor of the

Joy Pullmann
Joy Pullmann is managing editor of The Federalist and an education research fellow at The Heartland Institute. She previously was managing editor of School Reform News and the assistant editor for American Magazine at the American Enterprise Institute. Joy is also the 2013-14 recipient of a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy has taught high school and middle school history, literature, and debate, and has written public speaking curriculum. She is a graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs

Ben Domenech
Benjamin Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist and writes The Transom, a daily subscription newsletter for political insiders. Domenech also serves as a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute and editor in chief of The City, an academic journal on faith and culture. He previously worked as a speechwriter for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas. He co-founded Redstate, was co-host of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning economic podcast, and appears regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, and The Blaze.

[coffin_dodger]

Actually Slad, I came across the De Grasse story via Runesoup - http://runesoup.com/2014/09/fine-tuning-the-universe/

I then followed the link in Gordon's post to - http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2014/09/wiki-is-still-wacky.html

this blogger refered to the federalist article in his post - which I followed.

So I guess I'm a racist now. This puts me in mind to have a hissy fit, but I'll simply sign off by saying Sayanora and good luck.

[seemslikeadream]

no you're not a racist...I did not say that ...and you know that ....we in the U.S. are just a bit pissed off at the racists running/ruining this country and don't like anything they have to say about anything

I was commenting on The Federalist.....not you...unlike some people here I don't lump folks into to every link they post..for heaven's sake they've done it to me enough

States’ rights have been invoked to defend some of the most despicable institutions in American history, most notably slavery and Jim Crow. Many think “federalism” is just a code word for letting racists be racist.

Heather K. Gerken

[DrEvil]

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.

I agree, science isn't the solution, and a change in our thinking is necessary to combat climate change, but I do think that science is the best tool that we can use to effect that change. We know it's bad because science tells us so, and if enough people accept that we can start changing our thinking.

Religion can also play a part, since it is basically a tool to control our thinking. If the pope was to declare that fighting climate change is God's will it would help with changing a lot of people's thinking.

As for this: "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 have to disagree.

Science is a set of tools that allows us to come up with solutions to exactly those kinds of problems.
The problem is that those areas are currently controlled by a distinctly anti-science mind-set.
Science has told us that the climate is going to Hell. Science has told us that free markets don't work (no such thing as the invisible hand, for instance.) and science can help us pin-point social problems and how to fix them.

But of course, at the end of the day science is a tool. It can be used or misused, but the tool itself isn't inherently bad or good, it's just (in my opinion) the best tool for the job.

[DrEvil]

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?

No, but he is a moron. From your link:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

He's a moron because he fell for the ClimateGate schtick, which is a load of bollocks. Eight(!) different committees reviewed it, and none of them found any scientific fraud or misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... nd_reports).

And where are those trillions of dollars? In the pockets of climate scientists? That seems to be what he's implying, which, as you put it, is guilt by association. They do the science, others react and spend money on it because they take their findings seriously.

[82_28]

The amount in which people get pissed off around here for nothing will never cease to amaze me. I stick around actually because I do have friends here and want to see this through. I didn't write nearly 8000 something or anothers for nothing. Who knows what the fuck I wrote in 2008. I have no idea and am sometimes surprised by shit I wrote moons and moons ago. We're all here.

[Sounder]

Rory said:

If you just want to hate on a famous black man from NYC...

I'm a racist for disliking DeGrasse?

Pathetic.

And you don't even realise you're the one making it a racist issue.

Just, is the key word here dodger. It tries to impose the assertion that there is nothing more to your words other than racism. You should be honored that Rory has to resort to such empty verbiage. It's a peculiar word magic that some folk practice.

Gotta say though, shit works, -here I am talking bullshit, (instead of adding anything of substance).

Just is a stupid word that claims way to much.

[BrandonD]

Tyson is a successful PR manager. He has rapidly moved to the forefront of public consciousness because a projection of "rapt childlike wonder" is needed to sell the Modern Mythology, which in reality is dead and stagnant.

[Sounder]

Yes missed quotes are trivial, lies in support of GMO's however is not.

[DrEvil]

^^What lies?

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

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.

Anyone that grows steadily more popular will eventually reach the point where so many people like them that it becomes fashionable to dislike them.

[BrandonD]

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.

Anyone that grows steadily more popular will eventually reach the point where so many people like them that it becomes fashionable to dislike them.

Some people dislike him in the same way that they dislike any marketing person. He just markets a poisonous ideology, rather than a corporate product.

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

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.

Anyone that grows steadily more popular will eventually reach the point where so many people like them that it becomes fashionable to dislike them.

Some people dislike him in the same way that they dislike any marketing person. He just markets a poisonous ideology, rather than a corporate product.

But he doesnt market that ideology, he markets himself to that ideology. In an alternate universe where NDGT was never born GMO crops would still be going just as strong and Scientism/Technocracy along with it. His audience are people who already buy into scientism and are willing to pay to hear a charismatic speaker tell them all of their biases are right and all the people they already dont like are evil.If it wasnt him, someone else would be filling the gap created by the demand for Sagans/Dawkins ect.

[stefano]

As for this: "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 have to disagree.

Science is a set of tools that allows us to come up with solutions to exactly those kinds of problems.
The problem is that those areas are currently controlled by a distinctly anti-science mind-set.
Science has told us that the climate is going to Hell. Science has told us that free markets don't work (no such thing as the invisible hand, for instance.) and science can help us pin-point social problems and how to fix them.

But of course, at the end of the day science is a tool. It can be used or misused, but the tool itself isn't inherently bad or good, it's just (in my opinion) the best tool for the job.

Absolutely this. Science is offering the only solutions to our climate problems - restrictions on carbon emissions for instance - and it is only thanks to science that we know there is a climate problem to begin with.

As for social and economic problems, that's different because there are no solutions, or not in the same way as there is a solution to climate change (which is: limit the mean annual temperature increase). It just isn't possible to have liberty, equality and brotherhood at the same time in any given society, and every person gives different weights to each value, usually based on their material circumstances and the kind of family in which they grew up. Science does offer solutions to some narrow economic and social questions, like increasing worker productivity or discouraging antisocial behaviour, but pursuing these ends has negative consequences in other areas and offends other high-level values. If the political consensus is that it is desirable, for instance, to increase total output at the expense of employment and job security, then policies can be written scientifically to make that happen. Or the opposite. But the desirability of one or the other outcome is not a question for science.

So there are limits to the applicability of science, and scientists as a class are definitely prone to hubris and arrogance. But that has nothing to do with science, and is unscientific in important ways because it takes certain things as unchallengeable a priori facts. I certainly haven't seen Tyson do anything like that, and I'm sympathetic even to Dawkins, who is prone to exactly that kind of arrogance. Especially when the other side of science is someone like Rupert Sheldrake - all fart and no poo. I really wanted him to have some interesting findings but he doesn't, and now he is scamming people.

At any rate it's bullshit to say that Tyson either an idiot or a paid stooge (no options whatsoever other than those two!) just because, in a very brief interview about GMO, he didn't raise the matter of glyphosphate's interference with shikimate pathways. Is that all you've got on him?