Well you could be continue to be pedantic and totally miss the point.
When Nye does his thing, he's communicating science. When he schooled Ken Ham, he did not communicate engineering, but science.
Or maybe you could prove me wrong and show me where he was communicating engineering.
I'm not actually denying anything.
I will state, in my opinion, that this worldwide issue is a result of political control, but that's as far as I choose to speak on the matter.
George Carlin summed it up well several times... Here's an example --> George Carlin Stupid People - YouTube
It's all about language really... George Carlin- Soft Language - YouTube
It's all about language really... George Carlin- Soft Language - YouTube
Last edited:
The following quote is what you stated which I responded to.
The point is, "There is an alternative reality today, complete with its own alternative facts, right here in the US of A. Experts, you know the people that actually did the work and know what they're talking about, are mocked and vilified." which I agree to but when you brought up Bill Nye being mercilessly mocked, that point fell apart. Neil deGrasse Tyson has his degrees and when he talks about the relevant subject, he should be listened to but if he talks about stereo setup and got mercilessly mocked, one should look into the reason why that happened. Bill Nye is not a scientist like Neil deGrasse Tyson is and when he talks about something that he's not degree-ed in and got mercilessly mocked, you should look into the reason why that happened. The above quote shows me that you are too quick to judge.
Facts are facts, plain and simple.
Logic is also something being criticized, jeez only knows why.
Anything regarding this "alternate reality" stuff is to be tossed in the trash can as being opinionated hype.
And believing that mush is likely due to being uneducated and/or gullible.
Plain and simple.
Do you have any idea what an engineer studies? Do you realize that this website consists of largely engineers?
Nye is 100% correct when he corrects liars like Ken Ham and you are not going to succeed in distracting from that fact. Furthermore as an engineer he 100% has the credentials to talk about science. If you had studied engineering then you would know that.
By your own logic I should mock you for everything you say here because you don't have an engineering degree. Would that make me correct?
Oh come on. You're protesting and you have no background in the topic.
Sarah Palin mocks Bill Nye over climate change: He’s ‘as much as scientist as I am’
Bill Nye the Science Guy Debated Creationist Ken Ham
Read the comments Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - The Short Version - YouTube
Nye is the boogieman to young earth creationists. This has been going on since the "debate" with Ken Ham. If you were up to speed on this I wouldn't have to point this out. Nye is the enemy of religious believers, in their minds.
Sarah Palin mocks Bill Nye over climate change: He’s ‘as much as scientist as I am’
Bill Nye the Science Guy Debated Creationist Ken Ham
Read the comments Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - The Short Version - YouTube
Nye is the boogieman to young earth creationists. This has been going on since the "debate" with Ken Ham. If you were up to speed on this I wouldn't have to point this out. Nye is the enemy of religious believers, in their minds.
I mostly agree with you. There is a lot of overlap. Certainly Nye has a lot more knowledge of the relevant science than people who believe literally in the folk-stories written down in a 2000 year old book.
But the folk-tale-believers don't really use abstract knowledge to form their opinions. Rather, their opinions seem to be based on the emotional response produced by their amygdala, a primitive part of the brain near the brain-stem.
The amygdala is *old*. It's been around for hundreds of millions of years. Reptiles have it. Mammals inherited it from reptiles when they evolved.
Your pet cat uses its amygdala to make its decisions. Lizards and other reptiles use their amygdala to make their decisions. Emotion-based decisions work well enough for these animals to have survived and thrived on our planet for tens of millions of years.
However, cats and geckos do not understand science or climate-change. To do that, you have to have a neocortex, the executive centre of the brain, where cognition occurs.
Humans have a neocortex, but the amygdala is more powerful; just try solving a differential equation while a lion roars loudly at you from behind bars, only ten feet away from you!
Some percentage of humans - apparently quite a small percentage - are able to use their neocortex to study, understand, and evaluate abstract information (but only when not feeling under threat from roaring lions.)
They can then use their logically-arrived-at conclusions to override the automatic responses of their amygdala, at least to some degree.
For instance, a Navy jet fighter who's just been catapulted off the deck of an aircraft carrier into a pitch-black night, has to ignore everything her acceleration-scrambled senses are telling her, and trust entirely in the abstract information from the instruments in front of her. Your inner ears tell you that you're climbing steeply and are about to stall, so you must push your control column forward and bring down the nose. The instruments tell you, no, pull back, climb quickly away from the deadly ocean just a few metres below you.
Not everyone can do that, though. Reason and logic are not going to win over people who make their decisions almost entirely based on strong emotions. A gambling addict who's been losing money steadily for an hour will continue to believe he is going to win big with the next roll of the dice. You can't reason him out of that belief.
What concerns me deeply, though, is that there has been an explosive growth in the percentage of people who are willing to base their decisions purely on emotion, and, apparently, a dramatic shrinkage in the percentage of people who can learn by processing abstract knowledge, even when the facts turn out to contradict their existing prejudices. The earth certainly looks flat when I glance around me, but I was capable of reading and understanding the dozens of facts that make it clear that, no, the earth is not flat, just because it looks that way to a naive cave-man.
Or maybe there wasn't an explosive growth in the number of amygdala-driven people. Maybe Tik-Tok and other vapid and imbecilic Internet sites simply gave these people a much louder collective voice than they used to have in the past. Now they can out-shout the minority of people who use reason, and not emotion, to make their decisions.
Incidentally, I come from the opposite side of the engineer / scientist divide (if there is indeed a divide). My training is in science, not engineering. I probably know more about, say, the density of states in the conduction band of a doped semiconductor than most EEs do. But they know much more than I do about, say, designing a 1 W, 5 GHz RF linear amplifier. There is enough overlap between the disciplines for us to comfortably communicate with each other on this forum, 99% of the time.
-Gnobuddy
Lol no. The 'Applied' in applied science has a purpose. My engineering degree does not make me 10% a scientist, just like your family physician is not an immunological researcher.
The valorization of celebrity media 'science guys' regularly spouting on topics dramatically outside their specialization is harming science advocacy and giving rise to popular push back and ridicule, with new coinages like 'scientism' to describe clueless fans who treat science like a favorite beverage or sports team. Meanwhile Steven Jay Gould who fought the creationist battle much better and longer is largely forgotten, and contemporary but quieter science advocates like Bret Weinstein or Robert Malone remain unknown.
Hasn't Nye fully embraced the woke social 'sciences' stance on gender and sex?
The valorization of celebrity media 'science guys' regularly spouting on topics dramatically outside their specialization is harming science advocacy and giving rise to popular push back and ridicule, with new coinages like 'scientism' to describe clueless fans who treat science like a favorite beverage or sports team. Meanwhile Steven Jay Gould who fought the creationist battle much better and longer is largely forgotten, and contemporary but quieter science advocates like Bret Weinstein or Robert Malone remain unknown.
Hasn't Nye fully embraced the woke social 'sciences' stance on gender and sex?
Oh, you mean the typical reactions the public figures get from people? Sarah Palin got mocked order of magnitude higher than Bill Nye got. Publicly known creationists get mocked by people all the time and so do atheists. Where have you been all these decades?
He embraces global ******* (censored) movement. There are footage of him arguing against meteorologist. Hmm..., Science Guy vs. meteorologist, pay per view special this Sunday!!!
Yeah, Flat Earthers are more a study in human nature than any kind of science.
Anyway...
Here's an AC receptacle which claims, among various other heroic attributes, to have "the grip of Mickey Mantle," which is...well, that's just weird, man. But hey, only 49 DOLLARS!
Anyway...
Here's an AC receptacle which claims, among various other heroic attributes, to have "the grip of Mickey Mantle," which is...well, that's just weird, man.
But hey, only 49 DOLLARS!
Yeah, Flat Earthers are more a study in human nature than any kind of science.
Anyway...
Here's an AC receptacle which claims, among various other heroic attributes, to have "the grip of Mickey Mantle," which is...well, that's just weird, man.
I laugh at those AC ripoff receptacles.
My outdoor receptacle was shot, so in 2019 I replaced it with this one, which is fine for the task.... and only $1.98!
Access Denied
Oh, you mean the typical reactions the public figures get from people? Sarah Palin got mocked order of magnitude higher than Bill Nye got. Publicly known creationists get mocked by people all the time and so do atheists. Where have you been all these decades?
Sarah Palin deserves to be mocked.
Creationists deserve to be mocked.
Bill Nye is mocked for correcting malevolent liars like this. And he is correct in his claims. Bill Nye advocates for reality which is described by science. Sarah Palin and creationists advocate for lies which are based in superstition. Sarah Palin is not correct about anything and neither are creationists. That's the point.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.