The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Benko]

Since his name is sometimes mentioned here as an objective authority

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... C0lFfldW-0

[Reub]

When I saw him aspousing so-called global warming I knew that he was really a religious zealot and not a scientist.

[Benko]

YOu have a point.  I may be naive in thinking that there are some actual scientists who believe in man made global warming.

[Jan Van]

Good points. He must be part of that 97% of "climate scientists" that agree. Consensus conschmenses!

[moda0306]

So the article is a bunch of snarkitude from none other than the slime-bag Richard Lawry, focused mostly on Neil's commentary on Something Bush said about our God naming the stars. He probably misquoted bush's exact words, but Lowry uses the fact that it references Islam to compleeeeetely miss the point (or rile up his readers that have a ton of distrust towards Muslims) of what Neil was getting at.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w

He was making the point that the Muslim world was once a Mecca (pardon the pun) of scientific thought, and for over a century now it has delved into an intellectual gutter. One we should be careful not to let ourselves fall into. It had nothing to do with trying to prop Islam up above western thinking. In fact, his whole point, while it took a bit to get there, was pretty much the opposite.



And now we are back to global warming... And the ridiculous assertion that not only is there reasonable dispute among scientists, but, in fact, NO scientists who believe in man-made global warming.

[Pointedstick]

...Who? Are you all meaning to tell me that there's anyone who still pays attention to media personalities anymore?

[stuper1]

My view of NDT is that he's an entertainer; he's the Rush Limbaugh of evolution and global warming.  He's more interested in his own brand than he is in truth.  I'd lump Dawkins in with him.  There may be more sober, logical proponents of his general viewpoint that are worth hearing from, but NDT seems to care more about promoting his brand than any real truth.

Great post.

[moda0306]

My view of NDT is that he's an entertainer; he's the Rush Limbaugh of evolution and global warming.  He's more interested in his own brand than he is in truth.  I'd lump Dawkins in with him.  There may be more sober, logical proponents of his general viewpoint that are worth hearing from, but NDT seems to care more about promoting his brand than any real truth.

Well he is entertaining... Because science and discovery and history are interesting subjects, and he enjoys bringing them to the public. But in the end calling someone an entertainer doesn't really refute his arguments.  It allows you to just ad Hominem your way to not having to actually think critically. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, but as I listen to him, he sometimes does make factual statements and sound arguments. Most of the time he's full of it because he's either just blowing hyperbole, stating incorrect facts, or drawing incorrect conclusions from those facts.

Basically, anyone on tv or radio (or speaking to a church full of followers) is probably not the most objective, sober representative of their overall argument. They probably balance charisma and charm at the cost of some knowledge and perfect analysis. This is just the way the world is going to work when ads pay the bills and lemmings buy the shit in the ads.

But to put Neil on the same plane as Rush?  My gosh, that is a stretch.  Perhaps you just don't like the implications of the world being more that 10,000 years old, and the arrogance of people who insist that it is far older, and that science is the tool inducing that conclusion.

[stuper1]

But to put Neil on the same plane as Rush?  My gosh, that is a stretch.  Perhaps you just don't like the implications of the world being more that 10,000 years old, and the arrogance of people who insist that it is far older, and that science is the tool inducing that conclusion.

The arrogance that bothers me is when these guys claim that science shows that there is no God.  That's just ignorance.  Science can't prove that.  If they would just say, "We don't know", then there'd be no problem.  But they're too proud for that.

[moda0306]

But to put Neil on the same plane as Rush?  My gosh, that is a stretch.  Perhaps you just don't like the implications of the world being more that 10,000 years old, and the arrogance of people who insist that it is far older, and that science is the tool inducing that conclusion.

The arrogance that bothers me is when these guys claim that science shows that there is no God.  That's just ignorance.  Science can't prove that.  If they would just say, "We don't know", then there'd be no problem.  But they're too proud for that.

There are some atheists that are arrogantly confident at the non-existence of a God. Neil degrasse Tyson is an agnostic. You're trying to apply ideologies to him that he simply doesn't have.  His criticism of religion is NOT atheism.

[stuper1]

My bad.  I don't know much about him.  I assumed he was like Dawkins.  My bad.

[moda0306]

My bad.  I don't know much about him.  I assumed he was like Dawkins.  My bad.

Actually, I think their beliefs are nearly identical.  Both emotional entertainers, both very short on evidence and long on conclusions.

Well since we are trolling, those are tough words for a Bible thumper .

The pertinent thinking to his point is that of Neil being an atheist.... Which he has openly admitted he is not.

[moda0306]

But to put Neil on the same plane as Rush?  My gosh, that is a stretch.  Perhaps you just don't like the implications of the world being more that 10,000 years old, and the arrogance of people who insist that it is far older, and that science is the tool inducing that conclusion.

Well, since it's my comparison, of course I think it's perfect. 

But yeah, I think they're both self-serving egomaniacs, more concerned with their entertainment value than the truth.  The bigger question might be which one is doing more damage to our society. 

NDT and Dawkins both tend to espouse their philosophy, and want us to believe based on their previous academic credentials.  NDT in particular tends to clown around in his speeches, looking for holes in statements made by dead people who were probably 100 times smarter than him, but aren't around to defend themselves today.  He wants us to believe his assertions based on ridicule of the past.  He needs to produce some evidence or close his gigantic pie hole. 

And yes, I'll admit to blatantly trolling moda here tonight.  I'm just so tired of the certainty you latch onto, like a baby with a pacifier.  Wake up.

I have no certainties other than that my consciousness exists, and that deductive and inductive reasoning seem to be the most useful tools to navigate what I think is this world around me.  What should I wake up to?  Your Bible? 

NDT does clown around, but he lends a TON of respect to people in the past. He does comment about their religiosity, and sometimes ridicules that a bit when it conflicts with their scientific instincts. But that is minute in the context of how much respect he has for these people.

And I find it interesting how much you love to use all the tools of logic and science, as long as they don't challenge your religious beliefs... But as soon as science is being used to predict the age of the earth rather than build you a better smoker, you throw it out as garbage, with what seems to be very limited analysis. Let's face it... If NDT is a serial scientific entertainer, full of hot air and awful science... What with his assertions that particle physics and astrophysics are actually science, and all the made up garbage that backs it up... then 99% of religion is fairy tales used by megalomaniacs to make us feel better.

Wait... The latter is kind of true, while your claim is still arguable at best.

Tell me... What scientific author, speaker, entertainer, professor, or proponent do you enjoy following??

[Mountaineer]

But to put Neil on the same plane as Rush?  My gosh, that is a stretch.  Perhaps you just don't like the implications of the world being more that 10,000 years old, and the arrogance of people who insist that it is far older, and that science is the tool inducing that conclusion.

Well, since it's my comparison, of course I think it's perfect. 

But yeah, I think they're both self-serving egomaniacs, more concerned with their entertainment value than the truth.  The bigger question might be which one is doing more damage to our society. 

NDT and Dawkins both tend to espouse their philosophy, and want us to believe based on their previous academic credentials.  NDT in particular tends to clown around in his speeches, looking for holes in statements made by dead people who were probably 100 times smarter than him, but aren't around to defend themselves today.  He wants us to believe his assertions based on ridicule of the past.  He needs to produce some evidence or close his gigantic pie hole. 

And yes, I'll admit to blatantly trolling moda here tonight.  I'm just so tired of the certainty you latch onto, like a baby with a pacifier.  Wake up.

I have no certainties other than that my consciousness exists, and that deductive and inductive reasoning seem to be the most useful tools to navigate what I think is this world around me.  What should I wake up to?  Your Bible? 

NDT does clown around, but he lends a TON of respect to people in the past. He does comment about their religiosity, and sometimes ridicules that a bit when it conflicts with their scientific instincts. But that is minute in the context of how much respect he has for these people.

And I find it interesting how much you love to use all the tools of logic and science, as long as they don't challenge your religious beliefs... But as soon as science is being used to predict the age of the earth rather than build you a better smoker, you throw it out as garbage, with what seems to be very limited analysis. Let's face it... If NDT is a serial scientific entertainer, full of hot air and awful science... What with his assertions that particle physics and astrophysics are actually science, and all the made up garbage that backs it up... then 99% of religion is fairy tales used by megalomaniacs to make us feel better.

Wait... The latter is kind of true, while your claim is still arguable at best.

Tell me... What scientific author, speaker, entertainer, professor, or proponent do you enjoy following??

Is this a Twitter question? 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Well, since it's my comparison, of course I think it's perfect. 

But yeah, I think they're both self-serving egomaniacs, more concerned with their entertainment value than the truth.  The bigger question might be which one is doing more damage to our society. 

NDT and Dawkins both tend to espouse their philosophy, and want us to believe based on their previous academic credentials.  NDT in particular tends to clown around in his speeches, looking for holes in statements made by dead people who were probably 100 times smarter than him, but aren't around to defend themselves today.  He wants us to believe his assertions based on ridicule of the past.  He needs to produce some evidence or close his gigantic pie hole. 

And yes, I'll admit to blatantly trolling moda here tonight.  I'm just so tired of the certainty you latch onto, like a baby with a pacifier.  Wake up.

I have no certainties other than that my consciousness exists, and that deductive and inductive reasoning seem to be the most useful tools to navigate what I think is this world around me.  What should I wake up to?  Your Bible? 

NDT does clown around, but he lends a TON of respect to people in the past. He does comment about their religiosity, and sometimes ridicules that a bit when it conflicts with their scientific instincts. But that is minute in the context of how much respect he has for these people.

And I find it interesting how much you love to use all the tools of logic and science, as long as they don't challenge your religious beliefs... But as soon as science is being used to predict the age of the earth rather than build you a better smoker, you throw it out as garbage, with what seems to be very limited analysis. Let's face it... If NDT is a serial scientific entertainer, full of hot air and awful science... What with his assertions that particle physics and astrophysics are actually science, and all the made up garbage that backs it up... then 99% of religion is fairy tales used by megalomaniacs to make us feel better.

Wait... The latter is kind of true, while your claim is still arguable at best.

Tell me... What scientific author, speaker, entertainer, professor, or proponent do you enjoy following??

Is this a Twitter question? 

... Mountaineer

Ha. No.  I still don't "get" twitter. I really don't understand the value of it.

[Mountaineer]

I have no certainties other than that my consciousness exists, and that deductive and inductive reasoning seem to be the most useful tools to navigate what I think is this world around me.  What should I wake up to?  Your Bible? 

NDT does clown around, but he lends a TON of respect to people in the past. He does comment about their religiosity, and sometimes ridicules that a bit when it conflicts with their scientific instincts. But that is minute in the context of how much respect he has for these people.

And I find it interesting how much you love to use all the tools of logic and science, as long as they don't challenge your religious beliefs... But as soon as science is being used to predict the age of the earth rather than build you a better smoker, you throw it out as garbage, with what seems to be very limited analysis. Let's face it... If NDT is a serial scientific entertainer, full of hot air and awful science... What with his assertions that particle physics and astrophysics are actually science, and all the made up garbage that backs it up... then 99% of religion is fairy tales used by megalomaniacs to make us feel better.

Wait... The latter is kind of true, while your claim is still arguable at best.

Tell me... What scientific author, speaker, entertainer, professor, or proponent do you enjoy following??

Is this a Twitter question? 

... Mountaineer

Ha. No.  I still don't "get" twitter. I really don't understand the value of it.

Sorry.  I thought you must have posed a "twitter" question since NDT comes across as a complete "twit". 

P.S.  Don't you have interest in what time I brushed my teeth this morning, or what I had for breakfast?  (Just trying to help you understand a typical twitter conversation and see the value in twitter.  )

... Mountaineer