EmseB Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 But it's also not kind to affix the label arrogant to people who believe in supremacy of human intellect and scientific methods. After all history has shown us about what humans are and are not capable of, both in science and just dealing with other humans, does anyone really believe this, though? I would say that anyone who does believe in that supremacy is naive at best. Humans are capable of horrible things -- in the name of science too. And humans have thought some things that we now consider to be pretty ignorant, but in their day would be lauded as the great thinkers with superior intellects. And we in the 21st century somehow feel we're different and better than all those that came before us because we have made some pretty fancy tools? I think that is arrogance or ignorance (if anyone actually really thinks that, which has to be a vanishingly small minority of people because anyone who studies very hard -- i.e. scientists -- will see the calamity in that line of thought). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 After all history has shown us about what humans are and are not capable of, both in science and just dealing with other humans, does anyone really believe this, though? well I guess there was a clause missing at the end of my sentence. But it's also not kind to affix the label arrogant to people who believe in supremacy of human intellect and scientific methods....given that there is no god. It's not that we're so good at it. It's that it's all there is. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I think science becomes "religious" when people are told to accept anything discovered via the scientific method as some how infallible and not to be questioned. I think the show Cosmos, in particular, asks people to simply receive the wisdom bestowed upon them by great thinkers because those thinkers hold a title as studiers of science. People here are saying the show was designed to get people to go investigate, but that's not how much of the information was presented at all, at least in the episode I watched. As far as the first sentence is concerned...there's actually no one that believes or espouses that. And for the rest? Nice strawman. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 As far as the first sentence is concerned...there's actually no one that believes or espouses that. And for the rest? Nice strawman. I'm glad you've never run into anyone like that. I've come across it quite a lot -- that if one doesn't accept the given science on subject x, y, or z then one must be some what of an idiot. The terms "settled science" and "consensus" come to mind as common arguments in this vein. And strawman? I believe I was pretty specific in my critique about at least one particular part of the show. No, I didn't do a running commentary and I'm willing to acknowledge committing a logical fallacy somewhere, I'm just not seeing "strawman" where you see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Are we really retrying Giordano Bruno on this thread? Cosmos made it clear that Bruno made a few lucky guesses and wasn't a scientist. It also made it clear he was pathologically stubborn. None of his "crimes" were anything more than not kowtowing to a church willing to kill mavericks. What the heck? The church was wrong. The church knows it was wrong. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Well, according to the Scientific Literacy thread in the education board, de Grasse Tyson, Dawkins, and "their ilk" are in fact, scientifically illiterate. So, I guess it makes sense that Cosmos is "not very scientific". :huh: :huh: Wha??? :blink: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 well I guess there was a clause missing at the end of my sentence. But it's also not kind to affix the label arrogant to people who believe in supremacy of human intellect and scientific methods....given that there is no god. It's not that we're so good at it. It's that it's all there is. Ah, well, yes, operating from that position I suppose I could see what you're saying. But I don't think that's what AM was talking about. ETA: And actually, even in the context you're speaking of (given there is no god), I'd have to ask "supremacy relative to what"? I mean supremacy relative to other creatures living on planet earth, maybe, but that depends on your criteria for what "supreme" actually is. Perhaps creatures that know how to live here without destroying the place are actually superior to us, but yet our intellect is just manifested with self-awareness and therefore we think we're superior. It's an interesting thought experiment, actually. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Are we really retrying Giordano Bruno on this thread? Cosmos made it clear that Bruno made a few lucky guesses and wasn't a scientist. It also made it clear he was pathologically stubborn. None of his "crimes" were anything more than not kowtowing to a church willing to kill mavericks. What the heck? The church was wrong. The church knows it was wrong. I acknowledge the church was wrong and that Bruno was killed for being a free-thinker. My objection specifically was to the treatment his story got on Cosmos. I'm not retrying him. I'm saying that dumbing down his story and leading people to believe he was killed for science was part of what bugged me about the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 The idea that science enthusiasts are telling people you can't question the scientific method is weird and bendy thinking. It doesn't even make any sense to me. The scientific method invites everyone to question and attempt to challenge and prove anything, established or not. It has no patience for ideas that can't be proven but it's always open to being challenged. That's the whole point. Usually I find people who think that we need to be questioning the scientific method just don't like the results. I get why people find the scientific method challenging to religion though. While religion and science can (and do) sit comfortably together for many people, when people try to feed religion through the scientific method, they're bound to be disappointed. They are competing paradigms for thinking about the world in many ways. If you choose to pit them against each other, you're going to find the one you trust less to be threatening. I think that's just true. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I acknowledge the church was wrong and that Bruno was killed for being a free-thinker. My objection specifically was to the treatment his story got on Cosmos. I'm not retrying him. I'm saying that dumbing down his story and leading people to believe he was killed for science was part of what bugged me about the show.See, in my viewing it seemed clear to me that NdGT outlined several different facts about Bruno and made it clear that he wasn't a scientist and rather a loose canon at that. The main thing about Bruno is that he was willing to DIE for his beliefs unlike some other thinkers deemed heretics. I suspect that we are each informed in what we saw in the same show by our backgrounds and preconceived ideas to some extent or the other. Still, if you rewatch you will hear him say Bruno was not a scientist. I thought it was included to show how dangerous it is for people to put people on trial for their beliefs. And how misguided it is for ideologues of any stripe to have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. Also worth mentioning is that NdGT is not an athiest and has spoken out against anti-thiesm. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Also worth mentioning is that NdGT is not an athiest and has spoken out against anti-thiesm. he self identifies as agnostic " Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked – and occasionally in an accusatory way – “Are you atheist?†And it’s like, you know, the only “ist†I am is a scientist, all right? I don’t associate with movements. I'm not an “ism.†I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that’s not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It’s not. I’d rather we explore each other’s ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you know, what’s going to happen in advance. So what people are really after is, what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God? And I would say, if I find a word that came closest it would be agnostic. Agnostic – the word dates from the 19th century – Huxley – to refer to someone who doesn’t know but hasn’t yet really seen evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it’s there but if it’s not won’t be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported. There are many atheists who say, “Well, all agnostics are atheists.†Okay. I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page – I didn’t create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it – and it said, “Neil deGrasse is an atheist.†I said, “Well that’s not really true.†I said, “Neil deGrasse is an agnostic.†I went back a week later. It said, “Neil deGrasse is an atheist.†– again within a week – and I said, “What’s up with that?†and I said, “I have to word it a little differently.†So I said, okay, “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.†And some will say, well, that’s – "You’re not being fair to the fact that they’re actually the same thing." No, they’re not the same thing, and I'll tell you why. Atheists I know who proudly wear the badge are active atheists. They’re like in your face atheist and they want to change policies and they’re having debates. I don’t have the time, the interest, the energy to do any of that. I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place, just get you to be curious about the natural world. That’s what I'm about. I'm not about any of the rest of this. And it’s odd that the word atheist even exists. I don’t play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don’t ski? I don’t—I can’t do that. I can’t gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn’t believe in God. I just don’t—I don’t have the energy for that, and so I . . . Agnostic separates me from the conduct of atheists whether or not there is strong overlap between the two categories, and at the end of the day I’d rather not be any category at all." http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic-2 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I, actually, am sick and tired of all these science blokes. Let's have some science ladies fronting TV shows for a change. you know they're too busy falling in love and crying to do science on tv ;) 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Maybe I should set up an altar to the scientific method...little framed pictures above of inspiring quotes - 'correlation is not causation', 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'... An indigenous painting of the seven sisters coz those guys do astronomy nicely. It'd be pretty. Post a pic, yeah? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Women Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 My dfil loves it! He showed us one show, and dh and I were appalled. Tyson went from "here is some solid science" to these flying leaps of faith, "...so therefore we now know that life came to earth from outer space!" and dfil ate it all up. Tyson does not seem to have any concept of "this is what we know" and "this is a fascinating thing that some scientists are studying." I haven't seen enough of his show to know if he does this regularly, but the one we saw was definitely not very scientific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I talk to the trees Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I find NDGT to be annoying in the extreme. He's in the same category in my mind as Jim Carrey: If he comes on the screen, the device is turned off immediately. We own and occasionally rewatch the real Cosmos (Carl Sagan.) NDGT doesn't hold a candle to Carl, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I haven't seen NDT version of Cosmos, but I did not care for Carl Sagan's version, which came highly recommended and which I thought I would like. I *love* NDT and suspect I would like his version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Apropos of nothing much, Mum was telling me about how when she was little, she used to get in trouble for making her sisters laugh during prayers, by saying "Our Fardy Ardy Heaven'. Australians all are ostriches too. :laugh: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 And this quote is why I love that man. he self identifies as agnostic" Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked – and occasionally in an accusatory way – “Are you atheist?†And it’s like, you know, the only “ist†I am is a scientist, all right? I don’t associate with movements. I'm not an “ism.†I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that’s not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It’s not. I’d rather we explore each other’s ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you know, what’s going to happen in advance. So what people are really after is, what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God? And I would say, if I find a word that came closest it would be agnostic. Agnostic – the word dates from the 19th century – Huxley – to refer to someone who doesn’t know but hasn’t yet really seen evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it’s there but if it’s not won’t be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported. There are many atheists who say, “Well, all agnostics are atheists.†Okay. I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page – I didn’t create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it – and it said, “Neil deGrasse is an atheist.†I said, “Well that’s not really true.†I said, “Neil deGrasse is an agnostic.†I went back a week later. It said, “Neil deGrasse is an atheist.†– again within a week – and I said, “What’s up with that?†and I said, “I have to word it a little differently.†So I said, okay, “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.†And some will say, well, that’s – "You’re not being fair to the fact that they’re actually the same thing." No, they’re not the same thing, and I'll tell you why. Atheists I know who proudly wear the badge are active atheists. They’re like in your face atheist and they want to change policies and they’re having debates. I don’t have the time, the interest, the energy to do any of that. I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place, just get you to be curious about the natural world. That’s what I'm about. I'm not about any of the rest of this. And it’s odd that the word atheist even exists. I don’t play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don’t ski? I don’t—I can’t do that. I can’t gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn’t believe in God. I just don’t—I don’t have the energy for that, and so I . . . Agnostic separates me from the conduct of atheists whether or not there is strong overlap between the two categories, and at the end of the day I’d rather not be any category at all."http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic-2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I, actually, am sick and tired of all these science blokes. Let's have some science ladies fronting TV shows for a change. The science ladies are too busy dominating the internets over at IFLS. ;) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I haven't seen NDT version of Cosmos, but I did not care for Carl Sagan's version... Funny story about Carl Sagan: He once sued Apple for using his name as a code name for a computer model they were developing. It was just an in-house code name, and not something that would ever be used commercially, but Sagan demanded that they stop using his name. So they changed the code name to Butt-Head Astronomer — to which Sagan reacted by suing them for libel. :lol: Not surprisingly, he lost. Here's a quote from the actual ruling: Plaintiff's libel action is based on the allegation that Defendant changed the "code name" on its personal computer from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt-Head Astronomer" after Plaintiff had request that Defendant cease use of Plaintiff's name. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6-12, 45-51.) There can be no question that the use of the figurative term "Butt-Head" negates the impression that Defendant was seriously implying an assertion of fact. It strains reason to conclude that Defendant was attempting to criticize Plaintiff's reputation or competency as an astronomer. One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase "butt-head." Thus, the figurative language militates against implying an assertion of fact. Unelko, 912 F.2d at 1054. Even though Sagan lost, in order to avoid further law suits Apple agreed to stop using Butt-Head Astronomer as a code name — the developers changed it to Lawyers Are Wimps. :laugh: 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I'm glad you've never run into anyone like that. I've come across it quite a lot -- that if one doesn't accept the given science on subject x, y, or z then one must be some what of an idiot. The terms "settled science" and "consensus" come to mind as common arguments in this vein.Yes, and those sorts of answers are typically given in response to the same sorts of people who bring up the same tired arguments 7 different ways that's already been debunked 100 times before. Usually in response to someone who doesn't really understand the way science works or that the way they understand x (typically evolution, but climate changes is a close second in this category) isn't the way x really is. The thing is, *if* there's enough evidence to counter the accepted consensus, then the great monolith called science shifts. Yes, we thought x, but the evidence is now pointing to y. There are lots of ways that this has happened in the past and lots of ways it will happen in the future. We question everything...all the time. That your personal beliefs about the way the world came about aren't accepted by science (because you don't have the evidence to back it up and if you did, then we'd adjust our current consensus) is not proof that the scientific method is infallible or not to be questioned. It's proof that you don't have the evidence. That evolution is the accepted theory isn't due to belief. It's because it's the scientific theory that's best supported by the evidence. That Behe's ideas about intelligent design aren't more widely accepted isn't some vast arrogance on the part of "science." It's that the evidence doesn't support his assertions. By all means question, test, ask, challenge, and otherwise keep investigating the what if and why questions. It's how we move forward. It's how we start to get closer to the answers we need. It's what humans have been doing for millenia. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I might be missing your intention and tone, but this isn't a very kind or thoughtful post. Your view of the series sounds quite religious indeed, if the job of science is reassuring people, making them trust (instead of causing them to question, test, and question more), and live by methodology instead of keeping their eyes on the macro. Scientific study and research is wonderful and has yielded life saving, life enhancing discovery for humanity. But it isn't salvation and it isn't an end of itself. To reduce man's deepest longings, puzzles, and struggles to what can be tested and evidenced is quite arrogant - it assumes the supremacy of man's intellect and methods above all else. And targeting another poster and insulting them is in bad taste - you can do better! You misunderstand my post as well as my tone. I fail to see how my one comment about the series sounds "quite religious." I assure you, I have no rituals dedicated to the series, NDT or Carl Sagan. I do not invoke their spirit, essence, or favor in any way. I don't sing songs in praise and I don't consider the series to be metaphysically unique in any way. The job of science is not to reassure people. It is to understand the natural world in a reliable way. The best method we have is the one that weeds out biases and prejudice. This is done on the very large scale. This show illuminates some of the most remarkable discoveries to date, how they were inspired, and how they were discovered. There are two ways of understanding the human experience, as well as the natural world in general. One is to believe in faith a particular explanation is true. The other is to determine whether or not it is. I find nothing arrogant in that. I find it effective and practical. I didn't target or insult anyone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Yes, and those sorts of answers are typically given in response to the same sorts of people who bring up the same tired arguments 7 different ways that's already been debunked 100 times before. Usually in response to someone who doesn't really understand the way science works or that the way they understand x (typically evolution, but climate changes is a close second in this category) isn't the way x really is. The thing is, *if* there's enough evidence to counter the accepted consensus, then the great monolith called science shifts. Yes, we thought x, but the evidence is now pointing to y. There are lots of ways that this has happened in the past and lots of ways it will happen in the future. We question everything...all the time. That your personal beliefs about the way the world came about aren't accepted by science (because you don't have the evidence to back it up and if you did, then we'd adjust our current consensus) is not proof that the scientific method is infallible or not to be questioned. It's proof that you don't have the evidence. That evolution is the accepted theory isn't due to belief. It's because it's the scientific theory that's best supported by the evidence. That Behe's ideas about intelligent design aren't more widely accepted isn't some vast arrogance on the part of "science." It's that the evidence doesn't support his assertions. By all means question, test, ask, challenge, and otherwise keep investigating the what if and why questions. It's how we move forward. It's how we start to get closer to the answers we need. It's what humans have been doing for millenia. I find that you've made a lot of assumptions about my beliefs here (unless you were using the 2nd person in the more general sense), but aside from that I've had trouble in just a layman's bit of reading and research (as I've had access to journals through college and such) that much research currently being done gives me a sort of "turtles all the way down" sort of feeling when trying to get to the bottom of some kind of evidentiary trail. And I'm not even researching to "move the monolith", I'm just trying to read for information and my own answers. Assumptions seem to be made without even recognizing that things could be different, there could be other variables at play, there could be things that have not yet been discovered, etc. To me, that's the biggest problem with a lot of science being done today. There's little willingness to admit where the gaps are and and attempts to fill them seem glossed over. I sometimes wonder if this is something about being protective or proprietary of one's own research and findings. I could certainly understand that sentiment on a human level. I am being begged off to play a game with the family so I don't have a lot of time to elaborate, but that's been on my mind a lot lately while reading on a lot of different subjects (not just the big two you've mentioned above). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 If everything was known it would be a really boring place. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I think I had a higher standard for the show based on its popular appeal. By "unscientific," DH and I found ourselves several times asking "where is the proof? show us the evidence!" when statements were made. Yes. This is my feeling about a lot of pop science nowadays. They can't afford to question because they are afraid of creationists or pseudo science. It's so sad. If a main theme of the show is that science is knowledge (opposed to religion as faith), then I would expect much more evidence. Not simply a rad illustration of "this is how an eye evolved" but "fossil records and more!" I realize now that the audience for this show wasn't what I'd thought it was. Is it based in scientific fact? I am sure it is. I just wanted to learn more of the "why" and not the "is." You aren't alone. There are two ways of understanding the human experience, as well as the natural world in general. One is to believe in faith a particular explanation is true. The other is to determine whether or not it is. Only two ways? I couldn't disagree more and this is precisely why I dislike Team Science discussions, like there are two teams, Us (TEAM SCIENCE ALWAYS RIGHT) and Them (IRRATIONAL!!! PROBABLY DON'T EVEN VACCINATE!). Or conversely, Us (TEAM GOD, GOD ALWAYS RIGHT BY DEFINITION, CHECKMATE ATHEISTS) and Them (EMPTY LIVING, PROBABLY ALSO WANT DEATH PANELS!!!). :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: Drives me insane. There are a MILLION ways to understand the human experience and the natural world in general. Faith is part of nearly all of them; at least, the faith that what we perceive, is in some way generated by an external world, is part of nearly all of them. Nothing in science explains science itself. (Go ahead, try.) The second statement is unclear. What does "it" refer to in that sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 There are a MILLION ways to understand the human experience and the natural world in general. Faith is part of nearly all of them; at least, the faith that what we perceive, is in some way generated by an external world, is part of nearly all of them. Nothing in science explains science itself. (Go ahead, try.) The second statement is unclear. What does "it" refer to in that sentence? Can you share some examples of methodologies by which one might understand the human experience and the natural world in general? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Some of you might really enjoy this clip of Clive Wynne - he starts of talking about how me he dislikes popular science shows because they don't want to deal with controversy and prefer to present a single viewThere are plenty of science folks who enjoy controversy. The problem with presenting controversies to the public is that they get hijacked into other agendas so I know why people shirk from it. Any small controversy or doubt becomes, for some, reason to dump the entire field of study & say 'see, it can't be understood! you haven't proved anything!" But anyway - I got a kick out of this clip & it seems topicalhttp://www.sparcsinitiative.org/watch/a-new-epoch-in-canine-science/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.