Recent Bill Nye Hatred...

ThatRobGuy said:

If I may, allow us to approach this from a different angle...instead of people naming one scientist after another, and getting shot down with new rules about "what constitutes a real scientist" (in efforts to downplay their stance on the topic at hand).

Click to expand...

Is it a new rule that to be considered a scientist you should actually do some science not just have a degree? That's interesting.

List off the credentials that one would need to have in order to have a credible stance on this topic, and then I'll go find multiple scientists who meet that criteria that acknowledge that climate change is real and man made. Sound like a plan?
(and when I say credentials, I mean actual credentials, no silly requirements about how "the researcher can't have any form of government funding", strictly academic and professional credentials)

I've done this dance with other posters here on CF. When the onus is put on people who acknowledge it's real to find supporting scientists, they'll spend hours on end finding scientist after scientist just to have it shot down for random reasons given by deniers of "why that scientist isn't a real expert"... I don't know if game for the deniers just to mess with their opponents for fun, or if it's merely a stall tactic/"I got the last word, so that means I win" tactic.

Click to expand...

So this is a dance you've done alot with posters here on CF? Attempting to prove to someone that believes in climate change that climate change is real?

You need a new hobby mate.

ThatRobGuy said:

If that's the case, then why were you seemingly taking the contrary approach to the other posters?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what your on about as I've ignored most of the talk about global warming as I am actually interested in the topic at hand. We have plenty of very photogenic scientist who could have done this. What we have here on this show is wheeling out a failed actor for the sake of nostalgia.

You essentially agree with, but didn't want to let them off easily because they were liberals?...is that what was going on, or was it something else?

Click to expand...

For the sake of giggles follow back my contributions to the threat and see if you can figure it out.

TerranceL said:

What we have here on this show is wheeling out a failed actor for the sake of nostalgia.

Click to expand...

The fact is that most people like the idea of doing science, but don't like the reality very much.

I work at a college, and I can tell you that science classes are far from popular. Students pretty much never take them unless required by their major, and even when they do, they complain nonstop about how much the hate the subject. Yet if our society was really as enamored with science as it likes to think, there should be students fighting to get into those classes.

What people like is playing dress up, getting nice labcoats, holding fizzy beakers and so on. Bill Nye fills that role wonderfully, so it doesn't really matter whether what he does can be called science or not.

MoonlessNight said:

The fact is that most people like the idea of doing science, but don't like the reality very much.

I work at a college, and I can tell you that science classes are far from popular. Students pretty much never take them unless required by their major, and even when they do, they complain nonstop about how much the hate the subject. Yet if our society was really as enamored with science as it likes to think, there should be students fighting to get into those classes.

What people like is playing dress up, getting nice labcoats, holding fizzy beakers and so on. Bill Nye fills that role wonderfully, so it doesn't really matter whether what he does can be called science or not.

Click to expand...

When you get into more complex scientific study, it can be painful for those that don't have the mind to handle the same. People who are more analytical thinkers do better with science, vs intuitive thinkers.

Albion said:

That's because we aren't talking about the credibility of other people. The topic here is Bill Nye, his bizarre behavior of late, and how Americans have reacted to that.

ThatRobGuy said:

We're not talking about the credibility of other people, you're right.

However, if people who are upset with Nye are going to use "He's not even a PhD holder" as one of the focal points of their arguments against him (which they have), then they should be able to demonstrate a track record of placing value in that particular educational credential as it pertains to that field.

Thus far, they have not...

In various CF threads over the past few years we've seen all of the following accusations lobbed at PhD holders in the field:
1) PhD holders fudge data to fit their conclusion
2) PhD holders are in on the "big government conspiracy" in order to get funding
3) PhD holders are have an anti-biblical agenda
4) PhD holders are biased toward the left-wing agenda

So, given that, it wouldn't appear that being a PhD holder is a particularly remarkable quality in the eyes of many folks who reject the idea of climate change.

That begs the question, if a PhD in environmental sciences isn't a particularly compelling credential, and is associated with "data manipulation, nanny state policies, and left wing biases"...why would it be a big deal that Bill Nye doesn't have one?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly. His lack of having a PhD simply gives them something else to criticize him about. If he was Dr. Bill Nye, then they'd accuse him of being an elitist. There's really no way to win with these folks.

Stanfordella said:

Yep. He has a BA in Physics from Harvard;

Click to expand...

How can one have a "BA" in physics? Since it is so science intensive in course work, it would have to be a BS degree.

TerranceL said:

"What do you consider to be a scientist?"

Someone who actually does research. Do you think every person who has degrees in astronomy and astrophysics are scientist?

Click to expand...

So what do you call chemists, physicists, astronomers, etc. who work in the field but not do "research?

Engineers?

Dave-W said:

How can one have a "BA" in physics? Since it is so science intensive in course work, it would have to be a BS degree.

Click to expand...

That's what his official site says, a BA in Physics.

Profile | Neil deGrasse Tyson

SeventyOne said:

That's what his official site says, a BA in Physics.

Profile | Neil deGrasse Tyson

Click to expand...

Gotta be a typo.

Some schools offer BA degrees in sciences alongside a more traditional BS. Usually I've seen it as a separate program for people who intend to be high school teachers, or some other non-technical occupation.

Dave-W said:

How can one have a "BA" in physics? Since it is so science intensive in course work, it would have to be a BS degree.

Click to expand...

I'm not certain if it's still the case, but for a long time Harvard only awarded a B.A. in Physics, not a B.S. I have two family members who earned Physics degrees there in the 70s and the 80s. They reverse the letters out of a Latin tradition, so on the diploma it reads A.B., but it's the same as a B.A.

Stanfordella said:

I'm not certain if it's still the case, but for a long time Harvard only awarded a B.A. in Physics, not a B.S. I have two family members who earned Physics degrees there in the 70s and the 80s. They reverse the letters out of a Latin tradition, so on the diploma it reads A.B., but it's the same as a B.A.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Ivy league is a world unto itself apparently.

My degree was originally intended to be a BA in Engineering (Engineering Arts from Mich State) but the university legal team said there were too many science credits so it had to be a BS. (fine by me) There was some legal requirement in the accreditation authority that stipulated that sort of thing.

I recently saw Nye, in a giant ark, arguing with Ken Hamm about why it's illogical to claim a giant worldwide flood happened
...then I remembered that " floods " and flood terminology and literature is literally word for word about eclipses, which the Bible makes numerous mention of, and that led me to come to the conclusion that neither of them has ever picked up a piece of Mesopotamian literature and therefore they are both ignorant fools arguing about something that never happened
Aside from that, I prefer to get my science from actual professors, like Susskind

After reviewing the topic and the back and forth about what a "scientist" is, I think we need to look at what actually makes a scientist.

Scientists generally refer to what they do, rather than calling themselves a "scientist." You call yourself a biochemist, for example. In the United States, it begins with a bachelors degree in a science related field. You learn a range of different fields related to a branch of science. Most importantly, you gain an understanding of scientific principles and methods. It is that knowledge that makes one a scientist if you are going to use that term.

If you continue your education with other degrees, like a masters or doctorate, you are not becoming more of a scientist. You are not becoming more of a scientific expert in some general sense. You are taking very specific classes and likely getting involved in research pertaining to a very specific field. Having a doctorate doesn't make you can expert scientist, it just makes you an expert in some specific area of science, like environmental sciences, or physics, and so on.

If you have a doctorate in theoretical physics, it makes you no more of an expert in science than someone with an undergraduate degree. You don't magically attain a knowledge of soil ecology and should be considered a more suitable candidate to discuss general science than someone with a general science background.

Kenny'sID said:

Scientific opinion is just what the words say, opinion of scientists. If you have another definition for it, won't be the first time term were redefined here to fit an agenda, but I'm sticking with the straight forward.

Click to expand...

Science isn't really about opinion. If it were, we'd be having this discussion in a cave. Science is about gaining knowledge. Knowledged is gained by discovering how something functions or the predictability of outcomes.

We have the technology and the knowledge we do because of science and because of objective knowledge. My car does not run on opinions. My computer exists because human beings studied how things work and made plans to make them work a certain way.

People talk about "opinions" when it comes to scientific issues because they don't like what the science tells them. I have read things on this forum such as vaccines don't work - doctors just gave an opinion that someone had a disease and after they got the vaccine, gave their opinion they no longer had it. They completely disregarded that we can objectively diagnosis these diseases in a lab.

We know, objectively, that burning fossil fuels produces massive amounts of CO2. We can objectively measure under repeatable laboratory conditions that increasing CO2 concentrations increases the retention of energy that would other escape into the atmosphere.

FrankDux said:

...then I remembered that " floods " and flood terminology and literature is literally word for word about eclipses,

Click to expand...

So it was an eclipse that lasted 40 days and nights and drowned all the living?

How do you drown in an eclipse?

Kenny'sID said:

Tell you what, prove evolution to be the fact it is claimed, and I'll pick out the concrete examples.

Click to expand...

You want me to prove that a population of organisms will respond to changes in their physical characterics due to changes in the frequency of certain genes in response to environmental pressures? Because that's all that evolution is.

What you and others often do is use "evolution" as a term wrongly applied to other areas of science. People will say they don't mean that evolution. They mean the evolution where life came from nowhere or where humans developed from slime. They aren't speaking of evolution as a general concept. They are really vaguely referring various fields that confirm a reality they are uncomfortable with. If a person wants evidence of abiogenesis, that can be done. If they want evidence of the relationship between humans and apes, that is easily done on all kinds of levels. If they want evidence that populations can change to such an extent, that can be done. At this point, thanks to the study of genetics, we have the potential of studying the relationship between organisms and related species. You can map out a tree of life limited only by the time and money needed to elucidate the details.[/QUOTE]

HereIStand said:

Scientific research is separate from theology, but its findings are filtered through a world view that is bound up with philosophy and religion.

Click to expand...

Science is the objective measurement of what the senses can detect.
Theology is the application of reason to divine relevation. That is, information that the senses cannot detect.
Philosophy pertains to the meaning of each.

If you want a review, or my take of it...

I watched the first season of the show almost as soon as it came out. I wanted to like it. I really wanted to like it and thought it could be a great success after the first episode. By the end of the season, I found it very disappointing and it times irritating for whatever people were responsible for showing so much potential at times and such stupidity at other times.

The show revealed it had the potential to talk about scientific issues, presenting relevant and objective information. He could show neat science experiments. He could use skits to demonstrate concepts in a fun or funny way. He did these things at times.

The show had the potential for bringing in experts to discuss scientific topics. They could even discuss their social impact. He did this at times. Other times he brought in irrelevant people, like a mom that was against vaccination before she was for it and the guy who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek. The shows could easily have been lengthened to have engaging, interesting converations with experts in the fields each with a different perspective. Instead, you have the painful experience of sound bites as they spliced together and edited out the conversations in the interest of length. It was saying "We could do something great here, but we won't."

They sent out correspondents who showed they could do interesting stories, like polio in India, or present a piece like the Daily Show, where the interviewer shows that foolishness of the person being interviewed, the case of the guy who screams at people to heal them holisticly.

They had celebrities making pointless cameos. They showed this could be done in a fun way, when they showed celebritries pretending to be diseases. Instead, they mainly used them in ways that were not entertaining and at times downright annoying.

At times, the show clearly deviated from addressing topics from the perspective of objective science to feeling like such forced social engineering that even people who agreed with what they had to say found themselves disgusted. The episode on human sexuality was the perfect example of this.

Here is your moment Bill... you can show the science behind sexuality to give valid, objective claims to tolerance and even acceptance. Instead, it is squandered. Beyond that, it is so over the top is can be seen as offensive to the very ideas they are trying to promote.