The Cosmic Perspective - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Humanity, Intelligent Design + Science - Page 2

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

His point was that science is not a replacement for religion or spiritual beliefs.

And being healthy is not a replacement for cancer. You don't replace cancer. You get rid of it.

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Even Dawkins came round to having respect for other peoples beliefs in a deity by the end of this interview.

No.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

And being healthy is not a replacement for cancer. You don't replace cancer. You get rid of it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Doctors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...X64QCDVnI&NR=1

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson: A fascinatingly disturbing thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeJoVeKSsyA

A fool thinks he's wise a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The whole thing, it's a good talk.

But I think you missed the point.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No.

Yes.

well isn't this mature

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

But I think you missed the point.

No.

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes.

Zeuzzz, you keep shifting your argument, from something that is obviously wrong to something else that is also obviously wrong.

Read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. Then, even if you don't suddenly start being right, you can at least experiment with being less wrong.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 10:00 AM

Your either just trolling or you have no argument to make, or you would have made it already.

You are asking I read a book due to my inferior knowledge without even explaining why I should read it. It's an arrogant position.

Perpetual Student · 29th June 2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390

This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth.

I believe the (hypothetical?) person he was discussing would be precisely "a scientific ignoramus and a fool" and I see nothing arrogant about that comment.

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You are asking I read a book due to my inferior knowledge without even explaining why I should read it.

Sorry, not a book (though there's a book of the same name). Just one short essay.

Quote:

It's an arrogant position.

Nope.

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

I believe the (hypothetical?) person he was discussing would be precisely "a scientific ignoramus and a fool" and I see nothing arrogant about that comment.

He specifically refers to a doctor who rejects evolution as "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", i.e. someone with scientific training in biology, whose work depends on evolutionary theory.

A layman who rejects evolution might just be misguided. Wrong, but not as wrong.

Perpetual Student · 29th June 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

He specifically refers to a doctor who rejects evolution as "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", i.e. someone with scientific training in biology, whose work depends on evolutionary theory.

A layman who rejects evolution might just be misguided. Wrong, but not as wrong.

Agreed. The other person was someone who teaches astronomy and cosmology at a university who believes in a 6 thousand year old earth. In my view both the doctor and astronomer (so-called) are scientific ignoramuses and fools. No arrogance is required.

Zeuzzz · 29th June 2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

He specifically refers to a doctor who rejects evolution as "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", i.e. someone with scientific training in biology, whose work depends on evolutionary theory.

I agree, with that example, in that context.

But theres a difference between someone believing that and someone believing what Dawkins himself describes based on science in that interview at about 58:00.

Its from there onwards I lost my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual ... Lawrence Krauss is spinning intellectual loops round him and he doesn't even realize

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I agree, with that example, in that context.

And it is exactly what Dawkins says.

Quote:

But theres a difference between someone believing that and someone believing what Dawkins himself describes based on science in that interview at about 58:00.

No, he is entirely right again. And not arrogant at all.

Quote:

Its from there onwards I lost my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual ... Lawrence Krauss is spinning intellectual loops round him and he doesn't even realize

Krauss is agreeing with Dawkins.

You are simply wrong.

Perpetual Student · 29th June 2012, 10:37 AM

I listened to what he says at 58:00. What's the problem?

PixyMisa · 29th June 2012, 10:43 AM

As far as I can work out, the problem is that Dawkins doesn't give undue deference to nonsense.

Acleron · 29th June 2012, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

By my criteria for a scientist pixy your not looking too good : /

You better check your criteria.

Acleron · 29th June 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Didn't say otherwise.

Uh?

Zeuss

Quote:

There's a difference between a theory as strong as evolution as a concept and the specific molecular details of the mechanisms that govern it

You are saying that the theory of evolution is a concept and different from the mechanism.

Whereas the Theory of Evolution is the mechanism. The details of the mechanism were not well known in Darwin's time. But as we drill down through the mechanism we have found discrete inheritance, then genes, then DNA/RNA. These are all parts of the mechanism and parts of the Theory of Evolution.

Roboramma · 30th June 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Your either just trolling or you have no argument to make, or you would have made it already.

You are asking I read a book due to my inferior knowledge without even explaining why I should read it. It's an arrogant position.

It's a relatively short, well written and engaging essay that makes the point more clearly than either Pixy or I are likely to make it.

Here's a link, and short quote:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

Quote:

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

(I found that link on the wikipedia page, so assume it's cool to post it)

29th June 2012, 09:47 AM	#41
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz His point was that science is not a replacement for religion or spiritual beliefs. And being healthy is not a replacement for cancer. You don't replace cancer. You get rid of it.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 09:48 AM	#42
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Even Dawkins came round to having respect for other peoples beliefs in a deity by the end of this interview. No.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 09:52 AM	#43
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa And being healthy is not a replacement for cancer. You don't replace cancer. You get rid of it. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Doctors http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...X64QCDVnI&NR=1 Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson: A fascinatingly disturbing thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeJoVeKSsyA A fool thinks he's wise a wise man knows himself to be a fool. Originally Posted by PixyMisa The whole thing, it's a good talk. But I think you missed the point.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th June 2012, 09:53 AM	#44
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa No. Yes. well isn't this mature
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th June 2012, 09:56 AM	#45
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz But I think you missed the point. No.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 09:58 AM	#46
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes. Zeuzzz, you keep shifting your argument, from something that is obviously wrong to something else that is also obviously wrong. Read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. Then, even if you don't suddenly start being right, you can at least experiment with being less wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 10:00 AM	#47
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Your either just trolling or you have no argument to make, or you would have made it already. You are asking I read a book due to my inferior knowledge without even explaining why I should read it. It's an arrogant position.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th June 2012, 10:01 AM	#48
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Quote: SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#at=1390 This sort of arrogance, that his theory is true and anyone who disagrees with any part of his theory is "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", is not science, but faith in his science as truth. I believe the (hypothetical?) person he was discussing would be precisely "a scientific ignoramus and a fool" and I see nothing arrogant about that comment.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

29th June 2012, 10:10 AM	#49
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz You are asking I read a book due to my inferior knowledge without even explaining why I should read it. Sorry, not a book (though there's a book of the same name). Just one short essay. Quote: It's an arrogant position. Nope.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 10:12 AM	#50
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student I believe the (hypothetical?) person he was discussing would be precisely "a scientific ignoramus and a fool" and I see nothing arrogant about that comment. He specifically refers to a doctor who rejects evolution as "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", i.e. someone with scientific training in biology, whose work depends on evolutionary theory. A layman who rejects evolution might just be misguided. Wrong, but not as wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 10:18 AM	#51
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by PixyMisa He specifically refers to a doctor who rejects evolution as "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", i.e. someone with scientific training in biology, whose work depends on evolutionary theory. A layman who rejects evolution might just be misguided. Wrong, but not as wrong. Agreed. The other person was someone who teaches astronomy and cosmology at a university who believes in a 6 thousand year old earth. In my view both the doctor and astronomer (so-called) are scientific ignoramuses and fools. No arrogance is required.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

29th June 2012, 10:19 AM	#52
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa He specifically refers to a doctor who rejects evolution as "a scientific ignoramus and a fool", i.e. someone with scientific training in biology, whose work depends on evolutionary theory. I agree, with that example, in that context. But theres a difference between someone believing that and someone believing what Dawkins himself describes based on science in that interview at about 58:00. Its from there onwards I lost my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual ... Lawrence Krauss is spinning intellectual loops round him and he doesn't even realize
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 29th June 2012 at 10:32 AM.

29th June 2012, 10:31 AM	#53
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I agree, with that example, in that context. And it is exactly what Dawkins says. Quote: But theres a difference between someone believing that and someone believing what Dawkins himself describes based on science in that interview at about 58:00. No, he is entirely right again. And not arrogant at all. Quote: Its from there onwards I lost my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual ... Lawrence Krauss is spinning intellectual loops round him and he doesn't even realize Krauss is agreeing with Dawkins. You are simply wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 10:37 AM	#54
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	I listened to what he says at 58:00. What's the problem?
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

29th June 2012, 10:43 AM	#55
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	As far as I can work out, the problem is that Dawkins doesn't give undue deference to nonsense.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

29th June 2012, 10:45 AM	#56
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,933	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz By my criteria for a scientist pixy your not looking too good : / You better check your criteria.

29th June 2012, 10:58 AM	#57
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,933	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Didn't say otherwise. Uh? Zeuss Quote: There's a difference between a theory as strong as evolution as a concept and the specific molecular details of the mechanisms that govern it You are saying that the theory of evolution is a concept and different from the mechanism. Whereas the Theory of Evolution is the mechanism. The details of the mechanism were not well known in Darwin's time. But as we drill down through the mechanism we have found discrete inheritance, then genes, then DNA/RNA. These are all parts of the mechanism and parts of the Theory of Evolution.

30th June 2012, 06:06 AM	#58
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,096	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Your either just trolling or you have no argument to make, or you would have made it already. You are asking I read a book due to my inferior knowledge without even explaining why I should read it. It's an arrogant position. It's a relatively short, well written and engaging essay that makes the point more clearly than either Pixy or I are likely to make it. Here's a link, and short quote: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm Quote: Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile. Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long. (I found that link on the wikipedia page, so assume it's cool to post it)
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov