Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[Bradskii]

Sadly I think you lost the enquiring mind , from which all good science flows.

What's your enquiring mind say about abiogenesis? We're still waiting for you to tell us how you think life started. No how it didn't. But how it did.

 

[Estrid]

That is an important point.

Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned. Shapiro and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. He believes science should be politically curtailed.

More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience. Maher and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. So, Tyson not only believes science should be curtailed for politics, but that free speech itself should be curtailed for politics.

Tyson, who is holding the biggest microphone in the scientific community, has no problem saying these things publicly and even repeating them for clarity. That suggests to me that such an attitude is not uncommon in his circles, or he'd be more circumspect about saying it out loud.

I've long known that big money buys the scientific "results" big money wants. That's been clear since the "cigarettes are healthy" era. We have to face that fact that political fealties also result in the scientific "results" that politics wants.

What does the science say? You don't know!

I think there could a nuance issue
being misoverinterpreted.

Offend your audience, and you may not have
an audience. Kinda stuoid to hope to be a
paid entertainer who doesnt know his audience.

And what is a scientific pursuit? A msy
( maximum sustained yield ) study for a
a dophin fishery, say ? It might be quite sensible
dolphins may be quite tasty.

Are you certain that this is not good basic sense?

 

[dlamberth]

What does the science say? You don't know!

When looking at the geology of this earth, science is doing a pretty good job of it. The shining example for this person who lives in the Pacific Northwest are the Yellowstone Hot spot, the Ice Age Floods, the Columbia River Basalt's, the extent of the Ice Sheets during the Ice Age, the Rocky Mountains, the Cascade Mountains, Mt. Mazama, Mt Hood...the list goes on and on. A few PhD's were earned, but beyond that here's not much money to be made in the sciences behind these local geological areas.

 

[AV1611VET]

The shining example for this person who lives in the Pacific Northwest are the Yellowstone Hot spot, the Ice Age Floods, the Columbia River Basalt's, the extent of the Ice Sheets during the Ice Age, the Rocky Mountains, the Cascade Mountains, Mt. Mazama, Mt Hood...the list goes on and on.

Do you present that list as evidence of God's existence?

 

[dlamberth]

Do you present that list as evidence of God's existence?

Nope. The list was presented as evidence of the knowledge that science opens up to us. Behind that it is evidence that science isn't all evil as some here seem to be hinting at.

 

[RDKirk]

When looking at the geology of this earth, science is doing a pretty good job of it. The shining example for this person who lives in the Pacific Northwest are the Yellowstone Hot spot, the Ice Age Floods, the Columbia River Basalt's, the extent of the Ice Sheets during the Ice Age, the Rocky Mountains, the Cascade Mountains, Mt. Mazama, Mt Hood...the list goes on and on. A few PhD's were earned, but beyond that here's not much money to be made in the sciences behind these local geological areas.

You missed my point. Thanks for playing, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. The list was presented as evidence of the knowledge that science opens up to us. Behind that it is evidence that science isn't all evil as some here seem to be hinting at.

Science isn't evil.

Science is a gift from God, imparted through the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

It's how that science is used is where the evil comes in.

 

[RDKirk]

I think there could a nuance issue
being misoverinterpreted.

Offend your audience, and you may not have
an audience. Kinda stuoid to hope to be a
paid entertainer who doesnt know his audience.

The purpose of the stand-up comic is to point out the foibles of their audiences, yes, and to offend them. The earliest stand-up comics, the court jesters and "fooles" were the only people allowed to offend the king to his face.

And what is a scientific pursuit? A msy
( maximum sustained yield ) study for a
a dophin fishery, say ? It might be quite sensible
dolphins may be quite tasty.

Are you certain that this is not good basic sense?

That wasn't Tyson's point. But even then, a real scientist would not support prohibition of a maximum sustained yield study for a dolphin fishery for the same reason a person who cared about democracy would not support prohibition of politically incorrect speech.

 

[RDKirk]

And that Marine's name was... Albert Einstein.

I don't know what that means. Are you calling me a liar?

 

[USincognito]

I don't know what that means. Are you calling me a liar?

Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned. Shapiro and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. He believes science should be politically curtailed.

More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience. Maher and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. So, Tyson not only believes science should be curtailed for politics, but that free speech itself should be curtailed for politics.

Sorry man, but this makes my bologna detector go off. Maybe he did say those things verbatim, but the way you've structured it sounds just like an urban legend.

 

[Bradskii]

That is an important point.

Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned. Shapiro and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. He believes science should be politically curtailed.

More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience. Maher and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. So, Tyson not only believes science should be curtailed for politics, but that free speech itself should be curtailed for politics.

Tyson, who is holding the biggest microphone in the scientific community, has no problem saying these things publicly and even repeating them for clarity. That suggests to me that such an attitude is not uncommon in his circles, or he'd be more circumspect about saying it out loud.

I've long known that big money buys the scientific "results" big money wants. That's been clear since the "cigarettes are healthy" era. We have to face that fact that political fealties also result in the scientific "results" that politics wants.

What does the science say? You don't know!

That is an important point.

Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned.

Do you have a link for that? I've listened go a talk that Tyson had with Shapiro here:

Unless it was worded differently to the way that you suggested above, then it didn't appear to be in that video. There wasn't anything controversial that I could see.

 

[Bradskii]

More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience.

I don't want to sit through an hour of that discussion as well as the Shapiro one. But you've got to be primed to be offended by that. If you don't want to offend an audience than write material which doesn't. A good comedian will judge his or her audience and pitch the material accordingly. And I'm not of the opinion that Maher comes anywhere close to being a good comedian. He simply isn't capable of being offensive and funny at the same time.

There are a few that can do it. And I'll use the British comedian Jimmy Carr as an example. He purposely sets out to be as offensive as possible (so if you check him out on Youtube then beware). He'll quite often warn the audience that the next few minutes will be him testing the reaction to various jokes and he'll make each one more offensive than the last until he gets more gasps than laughs. He's trying to see what people will accept. He knows, and will tell audiences, that here comes a joke, it shouldn't be funny if you deconstruct it , but most of you will laugh and then later question why they found it funny. His routine is like a social experiment. As he says, you can joke about anything. But not necessarily with everyone.

He is an incredibly intelligent guy as well. See his interviews with Joe Rogan to appreciate that. He makes Maher look like an opinionated jerk.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But You have no idea what i Described, or the three investigations done, the professors involved , where it happened the results , Or anything else, or the nature scope and scale of active controls against fraud.

So your comment is a-priori prejudice based only on the connection with a church Building .

The Chinese found that moss from the north wall of a church yard cured many ills.
It would be a thousand years before penicillin was isolated.
But I can only conclude you would not have investigated because of "healing" connected with "the church"

Had you been the first to see a bluish glow in fluid would you have called it a trick or odd lighting effect?
It would have cost you the Nobel prize given to Cherenkov! The blue light existed whether or not anyone could explain it.

Sadly I think you lost the enquiring mind , from which all good science flows.

And I’ve long since concluded that this forum doesn’t study evidence or science anyway,
it is the “ anti theist confirmation bias” forum.

What are you talking about now? You mentioned several posts backs some odd lighting effect from a candle. Hardly a matter requiring scientific investigations.

 

[Astrophile]

Incidentally - it is now a hypothesis for how the shroud image was formed.

Is this correct, or did you mean to write 'it is not a hypothesis for how the shroud image was formed'?

 

[Estrid]

Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned. Shapiro and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. He believes science should be politically curtailed.

More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience. Maher and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. So, Tyson not only believes science should be curtailed for politics, but that free speech itself should be curtailed for politics.

Sorry man, but this makes my bologna detector go off. Maybe he did say those things verbatim, but the way you've structured it sounds just like an urban legend.

Thats why i questioned the interpretatiom.

 

[Estrid]

What are you talking about now? You mentioned several posts backs some odd lighting effect from a candle. Hardly a matter requiring scientific investigations.

Still chasing squrrel through the tree tops?

 

[Estrid]

The purpose of the stand-up comic is to point out the foibles of their audiences, yes, and to offend them. The earliest stand-up comics, the court jesters and "fooles" were the only people allowed to offend the king to his face.


That wasn't Tyson's point. But even then, a real scientist would not support prohibition of a maximum sustained yield study for a dolphin fishery for the same reason a person who cared about democracy would not support prohibition of politically incorrect speech.

I knkw the role of the comedian.
My point was that there are offensive
things that an audience wont pay to be
subjected to.
No pay no eat. Simple.

You choose what you choose to think
his point was.
Thrre wasnt mention of prohibition. Or
even a suggestion of it.

Sooo- youve nothing there.
If studying the feasibility of canning dolphins for
cat food doesnt seem offensive, how extreme must
it get ?


The Japanese performed all manner
of medical science studies on Chinese
theyd captured. Offensive ?

If youve no example of the sort of study a
researcher Dr Tyson suggests avoiding,
you may have an ideological pov but youve
no point to make, no just criticism.

 

[RDKirk]

I knkw the role of the comedian.
My point was that there are offensive
things that an audience wont pay to be
subjected to.
No pay no eat. Simple.

You choose what you choose to think
his point was.
Thrre wasnt mention of prohibition. Or
even a suggestion of it.

Sooo- youve nothing there.
If studying the feasibility of canning dolphins for
cat food doesnt seem offensive, how extreme must
it get ?


The Japanese performed all manner
of medical science studies on Chinese
theyd captured. Offensive ?

If youve no example of the sort of study a
researcher Dr Tyson suggests avoiding,
you may have an ideological pov but youve
no point to make, no just criticism.

Your argument appears to be:

A. He didn't say what you say he said.
B. If he did say it, he was right.

 

[Estrid]

Your argument appears to be:

A. He didn't say what you say he said.
B. If he did say it, he was right.

Aside from that it was a question not a
argument, that i not only didnt say that, but
it doesnt even make any sense, what do i see in
your post?

I see how you coose to interpert it that dr tysons words show he's an intellectually dishonest coward.

No other interpretation can be considered.

 

[Mountainmike]

Is this correct, or did you mean to write 'it is not a hypothesis for how the shroud image was formed'?

Is a hypothesis. Fanti has tested samples of linen.