What? If people in the past who have little knowledge with anything in their world, how things work, why they happen, you can only assume they would think it's something supernatural. And even today. Most people aren't going to become scientists why do they need to know so much about dark matter(or anything really) other than what they learn how a pbs special? Most of this stuff will just be trivia. So, I think it's stupid to be "OH I FEEL BAD FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD WHAT SAPS"
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Religion and the Universe
- Thread starter Vanillalite
- Start date
- Status
What? If people in the past who have little knowledge with anything in their world, how things work, why they happen, you can only assume they would think it's something supernatural. And even today. Most people aren't going to become scientists why do they need to know so much about dark matter(or anything really) other than what they learn how a pbs special? Most of this stuff will just be trivia. So, I think it's stupid to be "OH I FEEL BAD FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD WHAT SAPS"
I think his remarks about the topic have been pretty weird. I like that hes going out there answering questions and that he is trying to get people excited about science, but his patriotic remarks have always been pretty weird to me. One comment in particular felt pretty odd. He was talking about how the US should increase NASAs budget and his reasoning was that if the US didnt discover things - the Chinese would. Thats a bad thing to say. Science is not about your team winning and if the past has shown us anything then its that no country by its own can achieve great things. NASA wouldnt have gone to the Moon without outside discoveries, the Curiosity Rover would still sit in some dessert if it werent for the collaboration and discoveries of many different countries, CERN has only been possible because of many countrys combined efforts and so on.
If youre advocating that one nation should do something because another one has similar plans and that you have to be the first then I think thats counterproductive. Its pretty useless to suggest a nation should spend money on something another nation is already spending money on when you could also suggest a collaboration between everyone. Instead it seems to be about us winning instead of those Chinese, and that sends the wrong message. I find the US versus them mentality appalling. Especially when you see how much great things have been achieved by combining forces. That even includes the first space race when NASA had no problems using foreign scientific research and achievements to advance. I wouldnt want any of my taxes to do towards a pointless thing. Work on things together, share findings, and make discoveries I dont care. I dont care if the space telescope that takes nice pictures was built in the US, China, Iran or the Netherlands. Its the photos I care about in that case. Its the findings he should care about.
Healthy competition is one thing, but work getting done should be the #1 priority and when I listen to him then it doesnt always feel like thats what hes advocating. Though you're right, I shouldn't have used the word idiotic, that's a bit too harsh.
fierrotlepou
Member
What? That's like saying that you shouldn't learn people anything if it's complicated. You're not going to become a scientist so let's just skip the chemistry lessons, shall we? Just keep believing in the supernatural while we, the scientists, will figure it out and keep the information for ourselves since you won't need it.
Ignorance is bliss, but you need to draw a line somewhere.
Um no. Because you are assuming that everyone or most who don't know science just come up with the conclusion "It must be God". Thats a dumb assumption. You don't need to feel sorry because someone doesn't give a shit about dark matter or science. The people who do will and the people who dont wont. They dont need people to feel sorry about them or to say they are "sad".
i mean with that attitude why does anyone need to learn anything new? just some useless b reel trivia for the next you don't know jack videogame after all
i mean you don't need to know about the space shuttle program to know all the benefits the public received from the technology invented to power it
Like I said before. The people who want to know more will and those who don't wont. Im saying people who dont shouldnt be refereed to as "sad" or just "OH MUST BE GOD LOL"
I don't think many of the questions he's asking represent his personal opinions.
If someone decides to intentionally be ignorant, they're still ignorant. And others are allowed to feel pity or sadness for those who choose to remain in the darkness. It's not some foreign concept.
speculawyer
Member
Just simple things like the 'stars fall out of the sky' can be quite devastating, IMHO.
Ah, forget it.
fierrotlepou
Member
I never said that. I said that some people choose to, indeed, use God as an explanation for something they don't understand. It's this blatant denying of absolute facts that is sad.
That's not what was said. People are allowed to remain ignorant on subjects, nobody is expected to know everything about every topic. As long as a person understands that being ignorant of a topic means you have no place in making decisions related to it. But the danger is when that person decides to excuse their ignorance by using a god as an answer rather than learning the facts. Because then that person assumes they have a right to weigh in on the subject. It's a harmful and aggravating method many people use to justify getting involved with and influencing subjects they have no knowledge of and no business being a part of.
I don't think there's any maybe about it. With a different mindset, a more open mindset, we most certainly would have progressed further.
Even in our "modern" world, these barricades still stand strong.
Jaffaboy
Member
If you're someone that recognises the importance of education and understanding, then it's definitely sad that there are people that want to stay ignorant. It's even worse when it effects yourself and others, especially future generations. It's also frustrating when you consider how ignorance stifles progress. If you're fine with people being ignorant, you have to know that's an incredible waste of potential.
fierrotlepou
Member
Well, I didn't need any more proof of trolling, or maybe you should read the whole thread again.
I don't know how those examples can be used in this discussion.
fierrotlepou
Member
Well, silly examples aside: I know what you're trying to say and what you think I intented to say. And you're wrong. If you want to know why, just read the thread again. There's no one here that stated that they feel sad for ignorant people (in the broadest sense). Because then we'd all be miserable.
fluffydelusions
Member
awesome. I loved the original
Is this the response he made to me before he edited:
?
'Cause this shit is hilarious. Brotha, I'm engaged.
And I'm not making fun of you. If you're admitting to wanting to intentionally stay ignorant, then by default you're admitting you're ignorant. And if you choose to remain in that state, then others may choose to pity you for it. It is no foreign concept to feel sorry for people who close their mind off from truth. And if you're offended that people feel sorry for individuals in that state, I'm not sure how that's their fault.
I don't pity you or feel sad for you, if you are indeed ignorant. But others have that right, if they choose. There's nothing really inherently wrong with that that I can see.
Lazyslob said:
?
'Cause this shit is hilarious. Brotha, I'm engaged.
And I'm not making fun of you. If you're admitting to wanting to intentionally stay ignorant, then by default you're admitting you're ignorant. And if you choose to remain in that state, then others may choose to pity you for it. It is no foreign concept to feel sorry for people who close their mind off from truth. And if you're offended that people feel sorry for individuals in that state, I'm not sure how that's their fault.
I don't pity you or feel sad for you, if you are indeed ignorant. But others have that right, if they choose. There's nothing really inherently wrong with that that I can see.
It's fine, I am not offended or anything. I am pretty laid back about that sort of thing. we're cool
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
God created science
And one day, science will create god
And one day, science will create god
SniperHunter
Banned
oh yea
Red Mage
Member
Isn't this the dude who argues against the universe having a purpose based on so many species and sub-species being extinct?
yep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vzIMAhs
Guys like this annoyed me even when I was an agnostic. If someone wants to argue their belief, or lack thereof, based on science, that's fine. Just don't start arguing based on philosophical reasons and trying to pass that off as science. The extinction rate is completely separate from whether or not God exists. That's like arguing whether a rock formation is natural or man made based on the number of animals that fell off of it and died.
yep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vzIMAhs
Guys like this annoyed me even when I was an agnostic. If someone wants to argue their belief, or lack thereof, based on science, that's fine. Just don't start arguing based on philosophical reasons and trying to pass that off as science. The extinction rate is completely separate from whether or not God exists. That's like arguing whether a rock formation is natural or man made based on the number of animals that fell off of it and died.
You completely misinterpreted his point. He was arguing against the logic of "Humans are special, the universe was made for us"
Buba Big Guns
Banned
NDT always amazes me.
I wish there were more videos of people just asking him questions. I would love to pick his brain apart.
I wish there were more videos of people just asking him questions. I would love to pick his brain apart.
How did you so thoroughly misunderstand that video?
Red Mage
Member
No, I understood his point just fine. It's still a non-sequitur answer to the actual question.
That's a solid point against a personal god. That obviously doesn't work for, say, a hands-off Deistic god. But that's not what he's refuting there.
No, I don't think you did. The question is "Does the universe have a purpose?" He reasons that having a purpose necessarily means there exists a desired outcome. That's merely a consequence of the definition of purpose and he is clearly correct. He then asks, was this desired outcome human beings and also maybe a fertile cradle known as earth? That humans took so incredibly long to come about and that the earth has been rather hostile to most life he reasons this cannot be so. He is answering the hypothetical sub-question listed above, he is not directly answering if the universe has a purpose.
Of course you understood all of that, right? Which is why it's so strange you would object the way you did. I guess it just made us wonder.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Really enjoyable interview; thanks for posting.
^This part made me laugh so hard.
He's all "I can't... I just can't."
^This part made me laugh so hard.
I can't think of it as sacred. It's incredibly out of date. I don't mean aesthetically, I mean scientifically. A lot of Carl's incredible conjecture is now a matter of scientific record and needs to be updated. Cosmos was amazing because it made science magical. It made the incomprehensible fascinating. So I think if they approach it with that spirit - but modern CG, it will be amazing.
My problem is not that I don't believe Cosmos needs to be updated (it definitely does, it's sooo out of date), it's that Neil deGrasse Tyson's voice does not have an iconic inflection that is perfect for narration as Carl Sagan did (in fact I'm inclined to more often describe Neil's voice as goofy), nor is Neil typically as poetic with his imagery. In fact, Neil frequently makes fun of himself over the fact that he wishes he had as good a grasp of words as he does his field of science.
I hope however they wrote the new Cosmos, they wrote it to capture that imagination, that elegant way of explaining processes and complicated science that makes it instantly relatable and beautiful. The universe is beautiful, so Carl Sagan's almost scientist-philosopher way of explaining things ("The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are the way for the cosmos to know itself.") was paramount I believe to making the series classic.
I hope however they wrote the new Cosmos, they wrote it to capture that imagination, that elegant way of explaining processes and complicated science that makes it instantly relatable and beautiful. The universe is beautiful, so Carl Sagan's almost scientist-philosopher way of explaining things ("The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are the way for the cosmos to know itself.") was paramount I believe to making the series classic.
Head of Vengarl
Banned
- Status