25
55

[–] brother_tempus 25 points 55 points (+80|-25) ago 

Neil needs to look at the mirror and realize he is the pot calling the kettle black

1
25

[–] Leinhart 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

Do you have any examples of this?

20
20

[–] brother_tempus 20 points 20 points (+40|-20) ago 

2
7

[–] reddfugee43 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Pretty much all of the history in his cosmos series, for example trying to make a science martyr out of some obscure guy who got reported to the inquisition by his landlord because he was going to skip off to Frankfurt without paying his rent, and then pretend that what got him burned at the stake were musings of whether "stars were other suns" instead of the more pertinent theological issues like calling Jesus a magician and challenging the virginity of Mary. (Talking about Giordano Bruno in case you are wondering...)

13
-11

3
18

[–] edgelord 3 points 18 points (+21|-3) ago 

He is black. What are you talking about?

7
-6

14
-14

0
3

[–] LordHumongus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Care to expand on that? Maybe some citations to back it up?

0
1

[–] YesAndNo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Academia indulges in the self-congratulatory illusion that its social and political views, and the policies and plans of the politicians on the side of the aisle with which it sympathizes, are reasonable and unbiased and glitteringly rational.

But anyone with a knowledge of human nature can see that academics, and politicians on both sides of the aisle, are prone to the human failings of allowing their passion to distort their thinking, of closed-mindedness...and to the tempation to mock and discount one's opponents, and make straw men out of their positions and arguments, instead of being deeply intellectually honest.

Though I agree with ND Tyson on some of his positions, I have never been impressed with his intellectual honesty. For many years, I have watched him mock those with different points of view, misrepresent what his opponents are saying, and deploy the philosophical error of "appeal to authority" instead of treating the issues and his opponents with dignity and honesty.

11
11

[–] Atomic_Unicorn 11 points 11 points (+22|-11) ago 

They will cherry pick whatever they need to. Republicans in America won't even talk about the science of climate change when the pope tells them to! In Florida, climate change is a banned word kinda https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html&ved=0CCIQFjAAahUKEwiy4pfY4pLHAhXGGx4KHcQ4CqQ&usg=AFQjCNF58fPyqH0jLboX9GbURPIp5LU83w

[–] [deleted] 5 points 18 points (+23|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

2
9

[–] larebil 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Yes, listen to Comrade Pope. He knows best.

2
4

[–] Atomic_Unicorn 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

When one of your biggest demographic groups views him as a guide they do (unless their doners are offended by the big double C )

1
-1

[–] OskarW85 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

When one of most influential people of the world recognizes global problem only fool pretends that it didn't affect him.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
3

[–] Carinae 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Look at the number of people he is a main figure for though.

0
1

[–] Balrogic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

24% of the U.S. population are Roman Catholic. The pope has sway over a substantial segment of the population. Also, heavily Catholic areas tend to run Democrat.

0
1

[–] SkepticalMartian 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Honestly nobody should be listening to the pope about anything in the first place, but your point is well taken. They do seems to think that if they ignore it, it will go away.

0
1

[–] Atomic_Unicorn 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Exactly, I was only pulling the pope in to joke around/ prove a point. In an ideal situation, religious belief would have nothing to do with science or what politcal parry you aligned with. But some people in Washington think otherwise.

0
1

[–] AgriGrunt 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And Democrats are anti-vax and anti-GMO. Both parties are anti-science to some extent.

0
0

[–] theoldguy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Democrats are anti-vax

What? I thought anti-vax was a very few nutjobs that are nevertheless dangerous because of disease reservoirs, not an entire political party.

2
10

[–] TheFerretman 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

I totally agree...he needs to stop. It's embarrassing to all of us real scientists.

2
4

[–] jallab 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Ahahha, he dumbs things down so much. The sad thing is that when these kids start doing real science, they are really going to be disappointed.

1
5

[–] zippo 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The worst part is that this tool drops "science" that his worshippers should have learned in 7th grade...

3
2

[–] Nepoxx 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago  (edited ago)

That's his thing, he popularizes science, his science skills are irrelevant (well, no really, but bear with me), and he's great at doing that. He is, I think, the modern Carl Sagan: "dumbed" down science with a poetic and aesthetic presentation.

He might not be spreading advanced science, but valorizing science to the public, and that is very important.

1
-1

[–] YourDumbWhat 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

He dumbs things down for the sake of his audience... Nye is the same way. There are plenty of scientists who don't "dumb down" their science, we just don't know who they are because going over everybody's heads is a shitty way to get yourself on TV. Think of them as science ambassadors whose role it is to appeal to the common man so they can have some understanding of the value of science.

3
7

[–] voatforgoat 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

I don't know how politicians seem to be able to hold a genuine belief in refuting things like climate change, and how for them they are able to mentally cherry-pick the science they choose to advocate when the science so clearly shows that climate change is happening...like how can they convince themselves that this isn't happening when the hard facts and the empirical science so clearly show what is really going on? When will people start to recognise that science like this is established fact, not theory?

1
1

[–] rwbj 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

There are two ways to approach a topic.

  1. Come to a conclusion based on feelings, instinct or desires and then look for evidence to support that conclusion.
  2. Examine the breadth of evidence available and then come to a conclusion based on the evidence.

The first is going to lead to little more than confirmation biases or somebody grasping at anything they can find to reaffirm their own poorly supported beliefs. A big problem with this is the internet. Now a days you can support nearly any absurd belief with great quantities of pseudo-'evidence'. If you'd like to assume the moon landings are fake or that climate change is not happening, you can find a mountain of evidence to support said assertions. The evidence might be dubious or of questionable merit, but when you're just looking to confirm your conclusion it's all you need to go "Damn! I knew it!"

Ultimately I think it comes down to poor education. Almost no politicians come from a scientific background. I expect some, like Imhofe, actually have no idea they're being disingenuous and actually thinks he's being incredibly clever when tossing a snowball to 'disprove' climate change. Imhofe has no education beyond high school from 60 years ago, though he did receive some sort of presumably honorary BA from another university when he was 40. He's now the chairman of the senate environment committee. Our political system in action.

0
1

[–] SkepticalMartian 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Because it's a long term problem. Whether or not they really believe in what they're saying is secondary, because being the guy who makes the necessary sacrifices to reduce emissions is political suicide. You piss people off on multiple fronts. You piss off industry for raising taxes on their emissions. You piss off people who stand to lose jobs, and wind up paying more for goods as industry looks to make up the loss. The side effects of implementing a good plan won't be seen by most constituents as positive in the short term, even though it's something that as a species we need to start worrying about right now.

The problem with politics is that if you want re-election, you need to focus on things that will make you look awesome before the next election. Long term plans are rarely seen all the way through as a result.

Working towards a fix for climate change does not yield positive short-term political points, so they don't bother.

0
1

[–] Lighting 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I don't know how politicians seem to be able to hold a genuine belief in refuting things like climate change,

Well when politicians say they believe the science and think we should invest in things like Wind they get their funding cut and they are attacked in the primaries where they are most vulnerable. I know people who work in the GOP depths who say their guy is scared shitless to get smeared in a primary and get the lunatic fringe sicked on them by the oil/coal/gas billionaires. If you've got a ton of cash and no limits on spending in elections it's easy to find some nut who wants to rule the world and feed them mis-information and rally people around some social issue. How can science survive in that kind of environment?

1
7

[–] DudeDude 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

It was a great watch. It is available on ABC iview but is geo locked to Australia. And it wad actually an Australian science enthusiast on the panel who raised the necessity for minimum levels of science education/exposure to enable an appreciation of the value of science driven data.

1
5

[–] dThinkahea 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Politicians: "No, it's making us money."

0
4

[–] Drenki 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Drenki: Neil deGrasse Tyson, stop saying stupid shit for personal fame.

1
4

[–] biostitute 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Why does anyone give him a platform to speak? Who elected him representative of science

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)