Star Talk – New Show by Neil deGrasse Tyson

kanaric wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: He often comes across like a condescending prick. I'll probably skip the new show too.

Scientists do sound like that sometimes to people who refuse to accept the science no matter what evidence is presented.

I PERSONALLY believe

First mistake right there. There is a difference between belief and knowing. The scientists making these claims, including people employed by the DOD and NASA, have data and evidence backing it up. Like what do you do? Are you a scientist graduated from MIT or some prestigious university whose job is it to conduct experiments and launch satellites or study ice core samples? Or are you just some carpenter or IT worker? I think this is a huge problem with society, especially since the internet came about, everyone has massive egos now and nobody not even scientists whose job it is to research things like this knows more. Reminds me of moon landing conspiracy theorists. IDK how they did so that means they DIDNT and it's a CONSPIRACY!

Pretty sure I wouldn't watch your show either.

RX Reven' wrote: For the record, I’m not refuting global climate change and I absolutely acknowledge the importance of the subject. However, by definition, Cosmos means everything in the universe. What percent of the universe is comprised of earth’s climate change…what percent of the new Cosmos series was dedicated to the subject? Neil clearly allocated about a billion, trillion, gazillion percent too much time to the subject and I don’t appreciate the bait and switch job. If I sit down with my kids to watch “Happy Fun Clown Goes to the Beach” and it turns out to be pron, I’m going to be extremely annoyed…if I sit down with my buddies to watch “Cosmos” and it turns out to be social agenda stuff, I’m going to be extremely annoyed. That's all

Looks like 1 episode out of 13 was about global warming, the greenhouse effect and solar power...all pretty relevant to a show about space. So time dedicated to Earth's warming was somewhere around 2.5% of the entire show's runtime - I'm sure the F&F series dedicates way more time to women's asses.

Also if it's important and real then how is it "social agenda" stuff?

kanaric wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: He often comes across like a condescending prick. I'll probably skip the new show too.

Scientists do sound like that sometimes to people who refuse to accept the science no matter what evidence is presented.

I PERSONALLY believe

First mistake right there. There is a difference between belief and knowing. The scientists making these claims, including people employed by the DOD and NASA, have data and evidence backing it up.

I hear you... and sometimes when you have a lot of seat time with these ideas there is an impatience at having to explain excruciating details about these facts over and over as if you were the guy who proved it - only to have it dismissed out of hand with "I believe" testimony. That leads to a condescending tone at the first sign of testimony as evidence. I am aware I am doing it only because my wife gives the 'ol under-table elbow when I begin to make mixed company start to plot my murder but ... the truth is people are often not good at skeptical thinking and have a great deal of trouble differentiating between testimony and fact. It is and isn't their own fault but still it is a thing. Being directly confrontational is great fun but not terribly effective at making new friends or at selling your argument.

To get good information in the age we live in you must first be able to determine if a source is credible. To do that - you have to be a practiced skeptic first, understand what the scientific method is second and question it even if it passes the first two third. Even if you don't call those things by those names. Call it critical thinking. It sounds better. If you are dealing with a person who doesn't understand the subject - and holds a pre-concieved prejudice you can't sell them anything different without laying some groundwork.

I have made a lot of awkward silences in my time... but now I just recommend people read The Demon Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark. Sagan was much better at gently saying what I always end up blurting out as "because berkeley you, that's why". Maybe two people out of the many have actually read it on my advice and we have had interesting conversations after. Not always the "You were right" kind, just better formed and less retarded than "Rush Limbaugh is at least a news man, what do you even do?". Still... it's two more than zero. And the others - well, I didn't alienate them or make them feel stupid so maybe they will pull me out of a burning building someday instead of walking by. Probably not.

I get all my science from a gearhead website in the offtopic forum.

rotard wrote: Neil can't help that the Christian dark ages set us way back as a species. I guess we could try to pretend that they were caused by something else.

I'd like to point out that the "dark ages" weren't actually a thing. And even if they were, they would have been caused by the collapse of the biggest goddamn power on the planet at the time, not the people who took over after the Romans went tits up.

As for the rest of the thread, Neil strikes me as an shiny happy person, his legion of fawning fanboys on the internet make me like him even less, and there is no way in hell I'm getting involved in a climate change discussion.

I'll watch it. I listen to the podcast, especially if Eugene mirman is the guest.

I agree with whomever said he seems more anti-anti-science than anti religion. Im religious and i get the sense that he lacks some understanding of how it works, but certainly no moreso than many religious people I know misunderstand science (and religion, for that matter ). NDT has said that he is an agnostic, and he doesnt know why people keep calling him an athiest. That being said I bet the majority of backlash he gets is from crazy people claiming he's wrong because of their religion, however they have decided to define it. That would be enough to make anyone bonkers. My parents church has recently been over run by crazed fundamentalists, they've run off half the congregation. Just because they are loudest doesnt make them the majority, and they make us facepalm, too, but thats another discussion entirely.

I have one friend who lent me a book about how "science" proves that the earth is 6k years old. I still havent finished it because the science is pure horse e36m3 and I fear giving it back because he will inevitably ask what I thought. I can see that it's flawed in every way and im an archaeologist, not a stricktly scientific field. it seems to me NDT is trying to promote science literacy, or having enough knowledge to be able to spot the horse e36m3, thats something i think everyone needs. As someone mentioned earlier however, some people are more than comfortable with the ignorance that allows them to think whatever they want, they just arent thinking too hard about it. Im not sure what can be done about that...