Neil deGrasse Tyson

[82_28]

Tyson is legit in equal amounts Sagan was legit 30 years ago. 30 years ago there was no broadly used Internet. Tyson's heart is in the right place as were Sagan et al. Dawkins can go fuck himself. Sagan never hated religion or ritual -- not that I ever noticed at least. While skeptical, he championed everything there is. Sagan hated war and conservatives.

[DrEvil]

@Sounder: Still waiting on you to explain where Tyson is lying about GMO's.
Or did you just make that up?

[BrandonD]

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.

Oh I absolutely agree, I think he occupies his current position as a result of an organic process rather than a sinister "plan".

We all want to desperately believe the lie, and this desire places a charismatic wide-eyed spokesman at the helm because it helps us believe.

This is a conspiracy that everyone gets to participate in.

[DrEvil]

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.

Oh I absolutely agree, I think he occupies his current position as a result of an organic process rather than a sinister "plan".

We all want to desperately believe the lie, and this desire places a charismatic wide-eyed spokesman at the helm because it helps us believe.

This is a conspiracy that everyone gets to participate in.

What lie? How is it a conspiracy?

[yathrib]

How is this similar to 16th century academics arguing whether frogs have souls? If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "science fiction?"<edited for unnecessary harshness>

His research papers sound like science fiction

"On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest"
"uvby Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789"
"Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge"
"The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s"

Sixteenth century academics debated whether frogs had souls or not. I think we're in a similar phase.

[Nordic]

@Sounder: Still waiting on you to explain where Tyson is lying about GMO's.
Or did you just make that up?

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/20 ... t-response

He's either a complete ignoramus or a sellout. Which do you think is most likely?

To compare selective breeding to GMO's and say they're basically the same thing is nothing but a dirty fucking lie.

You would never get a glow in the dark cat that way, or spider DNA into goats milk.

And even in this article he ignores that Monsanto's goals behind GMOs are to make them impervious to Monsanto's very own poisons, so you can douse even more of the poisons onto the fields. He ignores how super weeds are destroying farmland in the US, especially in the South, and he doesn't mention that GMOs have never been tested on people.

Tyson is another corporate charmer media figure. Fuck him.

[LilyPatToo]

I practically worshipped the man until I saw that GMO clip. And what Nordic said is exactly how I feel now. At first, I put it down to a surprising ignorance about GMOs, but he's not gone on record since (that I know of) and corrected his statements, so....

Disappointing.

LilyPat

[Belligerent Savant]

@Sounder: Still waiting on you to explain where Tyson is lying about GMO's.
Or did you just make that up?

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/20 ... t-response

He's either a complete ignoramus or a sellout. Which do you think is most likely?

To compare selective breeding to GMO's and say they're basically the same thing is nothing but a dirty fucking lie.

You would never get a glow in the dark cat that way, or spider DNA into goats milk.

And even in this article he ignores that Monsanto's goals behind GMOs are to make them impervious to Monsanto's very own poisons, so you can douse even more of the poisons onto the fields. He ignores how super weeds are destroying farmland in the US, especially in the South, and he doesn't mention that GMOs have never been tested on people.

Tyson is another corporate charmer media figure. Fuck him.

Ditto.

[coffin_dodger]

yathrib said:

How is this similar to 16th century academics arguing whether frogs have souls? If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "science fiction?

Perhaps the simplest way I can put it, is to ask of you - " If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "any sort of truth"? "

[yathrib]

yathrib said:

How is this similar to 16th century academics arguing whether frogs have souls? If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "science fiction?

Perhaps the simplest way I can put it, is to ask of you - " If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "any sort of truth"? "

Really?I? These are peer reviewed research papers from an astrophysicist with the terminal degree in his discipline. Which is more likely: That they have some sort of validity, or that he made them up out of whole cloth, and the entire scientific world is engaged in a conspiracy with him to pull the wool over the public's eyes? I'm remembering why I stopped coming here.

EDIT: And again, how is this similar to 16th century academics, etc.? Or am I just not smart enough to communicate on your plane?

[yathrib]

...and I'm no fan of Dawkins, but he did say one thing worthwhile (and I paraphrase): Science is the poetry of reality. You can find spiritual fulfillment in it, and in the stories it reveals to us. But these are stories about things that are actually here. Just sayin'.

[coffin_dodger]

yathrib said:

How is this similar to 16th century academics arguing whether frogs have souls? If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "science fiction?

Perhaps the simplest way I can put it, is to ask of you - " If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "any sort of truth"? "

Really?I? These are peer reviewed research papers from an astrophysicist with the terminal degree in his discipline. Which is more likely: That they have some sort of validity, or that he made them up out of whole cloth, and the entire scientific world is engaged in a conspiracy with him to pull the wool over the public's eyes? I'm remembering why I stopped coming here.

EDIT: And again, how is this similar to 16th century academics, etc.? Or am I just not smart enough to communicate on your plane?

"I'm remembering why I stopped coming here" - Is that a polite way of saying you want me to go away and not post here any more?

It's not about conspiracy, yathrib. It's about state of mind. No offence, but I think I'm not going to be able to explain it to your liking. Cheers.

[yathrib]

yathrib said:

How is this similar to 16th century academics arguing whether frogs have souls? If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "science fiction?

Perhaps the simplest way I can put it, is to ask of you - " If you are not yourself a scientist, how would you judge whether these highly technical research papers are "any sort of truth"? "

Really?I? These are peer reviewed research papers from an astrophysicist with the terminal degree in his discipline. Which is more likely: That they have some sort of validity, or that he made them up out of whole cloth, and the entire scientific world is engaged in a conspiracy with him to pull the wool over the public's eyes? I'm remembering why I stopped coming here.

EDIT: And again, how is this similar to 16th century academics, etc.? Or am I just not smart enough to communicate on your plane?

"I'm remembering why I stopped coming here" - Is that a polite way of saying you want me to go away and not post here any more?

It's not about conspiracy, yathrib. It's about state of mind. No offence, but I think I'm not going to be able to explain it to your liking. Cheers.

I'm referring to the whole mysterioso thing... The dark hints at secret knowledge... It's certainly not just you.

[BrandonD]

What lie? How is it a conspiracy?

I'm just using colorful language because it's fun.

What I mean is that he has become a spokesman or a representative for a poisonous contemporary western mythology. As in all time periods, most of us are so fully steeped in our culture's mythology that we're not even aware that it exists. We simply think that what we currently believe is reality.

We need someone like Tyson as a spokesman for "science" because we need to believe that this institution, hand-in-hand with a deeply ingrained self-centered capitalist philosophy, will march us forward into wonderous new vistas, rather than towards a dead-end nightmare.

It is a misdirected religious impulse that our contemporary mythology tells us modern "intelligent" man does not possess. So we are blind to it, even though we continue to act upon it.

I call it a conspiracy we are all a part of because we've all collectively agreed to lie to ourselves.

[BrandonD]

...and I'm no fan of Dawkins, but he did say one thing worthwhile (and I paraphrase): Science is the poetry of reality. You can find spiritual fulfillment in it, and in the stories it reveals to us. But these are stories about things that are actually here. Just sayin'.

"Science is the poetry of reality" - that is true.

What is not true is that Dawkins is a representative of science.