ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, March 10, 2014

The ignorance of Cosmos

As expected, the science fetishists are cooing happily over the latest media foray into demonstrable ignorance of religious history:
Here's the thing: Even "Cosmos" points out that Bruno had no scientific basis for his theories. "His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess," says Tyson. So why is the long-dead philosopher important enough to rate hero status? That would be because "Cosmos" takes his case as one of "martyrdom."

What "Cosmos" does not point out to its audiences that the Catholic Church didn't really care about Bruno's views on the Earth moving around the Sun. His crimes -- the ones for which he was executed -- were theological. Several actual scientists in this period happily investigated the ideas of Copernicus' theories without running into trouble. Even Galileo only got in trouble when he published books that directly mocked the Church's adherence to the Earth being at the center.

Why does this matter?

So what if Giordano Bruno wasn't a scientist and wasn't executed for science? There are three big reasons why this does, in fact, matter and why it hurts "Cosmos" to get it wrong.

1. To borrow one of Tyson's famous quotes, the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. The same goes for history. Getting the history of science wrong hurts science itself. Why believe the science if other parts of the show are inaccurate?

2. Making Bruno into a martyr for science basically makes 100 years of historical research useless. The idea of Giordano Bruno as a scientific hero only originated in the 19th century, when he was championed by several historians. Since then, most have classified him as a philosopher sharing dangerous ideas in a dangerous time.

3. It's an unstated goal of "Cosmos" to champion science and scientific reasoning over superstition and religious dogmatism. But you're not going to win over anyone by vilifying religion in the face of science. Add in Bruno flying into space in an overtly crucifixion stance almost seems like giving religion the finger. You don't win arguments that way, "Cosmos."
The strange thing is that the science fetishists are always talking about a hypothetical religious ignorance of science while openly demonstrating their own ignorance of history, in particular, the history of the very religion they denigrate on false bases. At least one atheist is aware of the historical illiteracy of his co-irreligionists:
One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who has the lack of common sense to hang around on atheist discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person’s grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing....

It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked this [bullsh--] up from other websites and popular books and collapse as soon as you hit them with some hard evidence. I love to totally stump them by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists – like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa – and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents have usually run away to hide and scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong….
Cosmos must have him groaning with despair.

Labels:

175 Comments:

Blogger Duke of Earl March 10, 2014 3:23 PM  

Tim O'Neil for the second quote.

Blogger Nate March 10, 2014 3:28 PM  

bronze age?

Anonymous Krul March 10, 2014 3:39 PM  

So the Epistemic Knights have their own "martyrs" now, eh? I guess Galileo and Hypatia are right there along with Bruno, historical fact notwithstanding.

Changing the subject a little, I see from the article that Seth McFarlane is involved. The historical inaccuracy is expected, then. McFarlane openly hates Christianity. I saw a couple of episodes of Family Guy and American Dad before, and his portrayal of Christianity are crimes against comedy - the One Liberal Joke ad nauseum.

Don't get me wrong. My problem with his stuff isn't that it's inaccurate or insulting to the religious; I would be shocked if they weren't. No, my problem is that they're devoid of humor.

Anonymous Porky March 10, 2014 3:41 PM  

So Neil DeGrasse Tyson is now a fan of mystical revelation?

Anonymous Brother Thomas March 10, 2014 3:47 PM  

Hmm... it seems science is more suppressed now than it was during the middle-ages. Or maybe it's just more politicized.

Anonymous Alejandro March 10, 2014 3:54 PM  

Has Neil "deGrasse" Tyson ever actually committed science? Based on his own telling he's been a jumped up affirmative action baby since age 17.

Anonymous Heh March 10, 2014 4:07 PM  

I'm just watching the show to see if Tyson bites another guy's ear off.

Anonymous Neil DeGrassman Tyson March 10, 2014 4:14 PM  

SCIENZ IZ GOOD RELIGUN KILLS BECUZ WITHOUT SCIENZ EVERYBODY WULD BE DEAD AN STUPID.

Anonymous sejanus March 10, 2014 4:16 PM  

Good comments. Even as casual student of historical events, it became alarming just how many erroneous claims have become modern dogma.

It's bad enough that every event is framed with some editorial involved (e.g. those evil Crusades). Funny how LOTR is essentially the mythical version of that event but you won't hear that anywhere.

Anonymous JC March 10, 2014 4:17 PM  

Has Neil "deGrasse" Tyson ever actually committed science? Based on his own telling he's been a jumped up affirmative action baby since age 17.

According to Wikipedia, he helped declassify Pluto as a planet, and I'm not really seeing anything else. He's apparently held research positions, but I don't see anything coming out of that. His move to declassify Pluto actually came while he was director of the Hayden Planetarium...

Yeah, I think we can call him another jumped up affirmative action baby. Who apparently has the ability to write and the desire to spew propaganda. Hence the fame.

Anonymous Tom March 10, 2014 4:22 PM  

In other words, this incarnation of Cosmos is the same as the last...

Anonymous DrTorch March 10, 2014 4:25 PM  

That first piece by L. Brown was quite good.

I haven't seen this new Cosmos, but nothing of the descriptions here surprise me. People like the pretty (can a philosophical materialist even believe in beauty?) fanciful images of and from science; and they like being able to quote trivial figures, as if those constitute an understanding. But in general, it's all just mind-candy to avoid the hard things.

And from the (albeit limited) exposure I've had to deGrasse Tyson, he certainly strives to appear like an affirmative action caricature. So, I'm going with what the empirical evidence says.

Anonymous kh123 March 10, 2014 4:25 PM  

Wondering when we're going to see a dialog where TENS is represented by Charles Simpleton.

Anonymous RL March 10, 2014 4:28 PM  

.Cosmos committed a second sin as well, even greater than its historical ignorance.

It was boring.

Anonymous Mob-Rules March 10, 2014 4:35 PM  

The debut trailer/commercial had sparked my intrigue. The tease of the wealth of information, the high budget production look. Then I saw the dried out jerry curl with the 70's foo man chu emerge from the milky way and I was immediately turned off. Tyson is such a self applauding douche that likes to talk to amuse his pretentious sense of self worth than actually teaching anything.

Anonymous Doug Wardell March 10, 2014 4:36 PM  

The first part of the show was an ode to special affects, Sagan and to Tyson, who I like in general, but it didn't play for me.

The middle was all about how religion is bad, but lucky guesses are good. I may be an atheist and have a MS in Computer Science, but this still felt more like a hit-job than a serious assessment. It's silly to attack the church this way and to not point out all the scientists who benefited from the church during a time when they'd have been stuck farming otherwise. If the goal was to talk about how science started and why it's important, highlighting Aristotle would have made more sense. If they wanted to look at science through history, then add Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Ptolemy and Einstein, off the top of my head. The choice they made just felt like they had an axe to grind

The end was back to the Neil and Carl show.

What I'd really like to see is a show about physics and space which assumes you already know the basics of relativity, uncertainty and the photo-electric effect.

Anonymous Truth March 10, 2014 4:41 PM  

The article you're quoting, in the last paragraph says, " the show is a huge success. "Cosmos" is beautiful and fascinating and accessible to anyone."

That's what we should be taking away from the show. To see the show as something to attack, which Vox seems to, shows just how ignorant of science he truly is. Or maybe afraid. Either way, if this is his comment on the new show, with no praise to offer, then Vox's opinion once again proves worthless.

Anonymous VD March 10, 2014 4:46 PM  

To see the show as something to attack, which Vox seems to, shows just how ignorant of science he truly is. Or maybe afraid.

Yes, Truth, I'm simply terrified that you idiots are going to be even more misinformed. It amuses me that you can't figure out this sort of science propaganda makes it all the easier for me to embarrass you when you make your factually incorrect assertions.

Anonymous VD March 10, 2014 4:48 PM  

People like Truth and the Scienceblogs types get all excited because someone showed pretty pictures and talked in resonant tones about science. And that will get all sorts of kids who can't read excited about science!

As if the current batch of scientists aren't dumb enough.

Blogger LibertyPortraits March 10, 2014 4:52 PM  

Anyone know of a few good history of science tomes one should peruse before having an opinion on the matter?

Anonymous DrTorch March 10, 2014 4:55 PM  

Anyone know of a few good history of science tomes one should peruse before having an opinion on the matter?

James Burke's works are pretty fair.

Anonymous Krul March 10, 2014 4:57 PM  

It is clear that your reaction is emotional rather than logical, Truth. Neither Vox nor anybody else is under any obligation to praise the TV program, and the decision either to praise or refrain from praising it alone does not imply anything whatsoever about one's scientific knowledge or lack thereof.

Note that Vox didn't actually attack the program, but simply pointed out that it misrepresents history and that this is typical.

Anonymous Valiant March 10, 2014 4:59 PM  

I was disappointed in the show as well. To talk about Bruno and the evils of religion and to then talk about the Big Bang and not mention that the person responsible for coming up with the big bang theory was a Roman Catholic priest, felt like a dishonest portrayal of the history. This calls into question the historical accuracy of the future episodes.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter March 10, 2014 5:02 PM  

I am sure that her criticism was more stimulating:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/girls-star-lena-dunham-gets-nude-mocks-bible-snl

Anonymous Salt March 10, 2014 5:05 PM  

Scalzi liked it.

Anonymous Wahrheit March 10, 2014 5:08 PM  

The article you're quoting, in the last paragraph says, " the film is a huge success. "Triumph of the Will" is beautiful and fascinating and accessible to anyone."

That's what we should be taking away from the rally. To see it as something to attack shows just how ignorant of politics and socialism the critic truly is. Or maybe afraid.

Anonymous damntull March 10, 2014 5:10 PM  

Truth,
Request for a moment of honesty.
Do you really believe that Vox is afraid of science? You sound so very trollish. Why be such a jerk?

Anonymous Salt March 10, 2014 5:11 PM  

He's successful.

Anonymous Noah B. March 10, 2014 5:15 PM  

Although I rarely watch SNL, I did see the Lena Dunham skit about the Garden of Eden. I felt sure it was her intent to mock the Bible, but to me, it was a far more effective mockery of all that is modern progressivism. From that perspective, it was really pretty hilarious.

Anonymous Logo March 10, 2014 5:18 PM  

Anyone know of a few good history of science tomes one should peruse before having an opinion on the matter?

I recommend Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science by Richard DeWitt, as a starting point. He introduces many concepts common among the writings of historians and philosophers of science, as well as disproving much of the popular mythology of science. Next, for less of the philosophy and more of the history, I recommend The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 March 10, 2014 5:23 PM  

Anyone know of a few good history of science tomes one should peruse

Don't know about having an opinion on the matter, but Gravity's Arc is a pretty good historical retrospective on trying to figure out what gravity is, how it works, and how no one's actually figured it out yet.
It only covers the (sort of) narrow topic of gravity, but the sections detailing the development of ballistics and artillery were a pleasant surprise, and worth the price of admission.

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2014 5:25 PM  

Tyson is the affirmative action Sagan. I think the reason so many science worshipping, middle class white fanboys like him is simple: he's a black dude preaching crap usually designated to old white guys with British accents. He's a pop culture figure, no more no less. As for Seth Macfarland--any man who thinks he can be taken seriously in the matters of God after making a movie about a talking, farting teddy bear is monumentally mental.

Anonymous Josh March 10, 2014 5:26 PM  

What was so different about this compared to other science shows on national geographic, pbs, or discovery?

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2014 5:27 PM  

Lena Durham looks like 170 pounds of chewed bubble gum.

Anonymous kfg March 10, 2014 5:30 PM  

Galileo's crime was not in publishing. It was in publishing while under Papal order not to do so and thinking that by using "clever' language he could get away with it.

Instead his ploy was so glaringly obvious that it just pissed the Inquisition off no end.

Nobody likes a clever dick.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 March 10, 2014 5:31 PM  

What was so different about this compared to other science shows on national geographic, pbs, or discovery?

It was done by the guy behind Family Guy.

Lena Durham looks like 170 pounds of chewed bubble gum

To be fair, when she dolls herself up and dons the right hat, she could easily be mistaken for the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
If the lighting's right, and the camera shoots down.

Anonymous kh123 March 10, 2014 5:34 PM  

The axe to grind might as well be that the military has persecuted Science ever since Archimedes. Just as plausible given the numbers, and would go over just as well with the targeted SWPLs - though the hightide of the Bush years has passed.

Anonymous kh123 March 10, 2014 5:39 PM  

"It was done by the guy behind Family Guy."

Which means it must be funny and original, while simultaneously being obnoxious and derivative.

Paradox... Not just for deities and astral phenomena any longer.

Anonymous Will Best March 10, 2014 6:09 PM  

Why would you presume anybody under the age of 50 has more than a high school understanding of history? The traditional liberal arts education was replaced with credentialism sometime during the 80's.

If you know somebody that has an understanding history these days they are almost certainly self taught

Anonymous Neil Idle deGrasse Tyson March 10, 2014 6:50 PM  

Instead of mugging someone, I used a telescope once!

My balls, your mouth.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni March 10, 2014 6:50 PM  

Rodney Stark

Anonymous Mike M. March 10, 2014 6:57 PM  

To be honest, most young people KNOW they are utterly ignorant of history. What they don't have is a good idea of how to remedy it. Rummaging through Wikipedia is fun, but you need a firm grounding in basics.

(Yes, Wikipedia is not a solid source. But the pre-1900 history pages aren't too bad, and the cross-referencing is very useful)

Blogger Manach March 10, 2014 7:03 PM  

As someone with a History myself, the author does an excellent summation how science was in many respects nurtured in the Europe of the time, and laid the foundations of the various scientific revolutions. Perhaps it is rather ironic that in modern day Europe, Science now seems more a cats-paw for progressive ideologies to advance their ideals and demonising anyone raising issues against the perceived orthodoxies (eg in climate change) .

Blogger Taqiyyotomist March 10, 2014 7:25 PM  

OT, ilk may find interest:

Look at Google -- RIGHT NOW.

Oh, it sounds so nice. "Encourage Girls to Lead."

Sometimes I want to just scream... but last time I did that I lost my voice for three months.

Anonymous Idle Spectator March 10, 2014 7:32 PM  

I already posted that on the debt-money thread.

I think they are just fucking with us now. Or maybe they really are that stupid.

Anonymous kh123 March 10, 2014 7:40 PM  

Damn straight. Make it a sandwich with those cookies.

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2014 7:40 PM  

Listen to Tyson's interview with Bill Moyers, and notice how he sounds just like every atheist you read on message boards, Facebook, and the internet in general. He has no understanding of the Holy Bible and how to interpret it. Check out William Craig's website for a cool critique of Tyson's ignorant posturing.

Anonymous Daniel March 10, 2014 7:42 PM  

This entire time, I thought everyone was talking about Cosmopolitan magazines, so I went out and bought one.

Now I know how to have an orgasm.

Thanks, science!

Anonymous Don March 10, 2014 7:45 PM  

Daniel said "Now I know how to have an orgasm."

Yeah but you need whips and chains and three great danes if you read Cosmo.

Anonymous Neil Idle deGrasse Tyson March 10, 2014 7:52 PM  

Listen to Tyson's interview with Bill Moyers, and notice how he sounds just like every atheist you read on message boards, Facebook, and the internet in general.

But the difference is I was on television.

MY BALLS, YOUR MOUTH.

Anonymous Susan March 10, 2014 7:58 PM  

Did they air the Obama taped intro? With his record of failure and being the kiss of death for anything he is associated with, I knew beforehand this would not be worth the time watching.

Blogger Hermit March 10, 2014 8:03 PM  

Bruno was not burned because he was the champion of science in his age, he was burned because of his pantheism and mostly because he did some weird magic/pseudoscientific potions and memory techniques.
Actually the feudal lord who sold him did so because he was disappointed that the memory techniques were a fraud.
His philosophy was very confuse and incoherent: this is the real Bruno.

Then there is another Bruno: the martyr of science and freethink, an imaginary figure created by positivists and antitheists since the end of the XIX century.
In Rome there is a statue of Bruno where he was burned, it was built few years after the italian state conquered Rome from the Pope and supported by all the anticlerical movements.
Still today every years the antitheists do a crappy parade every year to bring flowers under the statue and attack religious obscurantism.

All those who exhalt Bruno today don't know shit about him, they just use him as a martyr against religion. It's just propaganda, another myth of the demential secular religion of our age.

Anonymous CLK March 10, 2014 8:11 PM  

PhD in Astrophysics.... He is actually not a bad guy, quite reasonable and a big supporter of NASA and manned space. You should pick on someone else...

I cant really disagree with the comment regarding science/engineering graduates not knowing history .. ,lets face it.. in a typical engineering program you take 1 history class (US) and sometimes no foreign language -- history degrees are for those that cant handle the math of engineering. Hey .. anyone can get a history degree --- get a library card, you can get a history degree.. not the most intellectually challenging of degrees... And especially here where there is always a big push to only study what you get a economic return and I would think the ilk would agree as well...

Anonymous Phillyastro March 10, 2014 8:41 PM  

"The Giordano Bruno Foundation (German: Giordano Bruno Stiftung) is a non-profit foundation based in Germany that pursues the “Support of Evolutionary Humanism”. It was founded by entrepreneur Herbert Steffen in 2004. The Giordano Bruno Foundation is considered critical of religion, which it characterizes as detrimental to cultural evolution."

From Bruno to Newton, moderns have downplayed the devoutness and piety of great historical figures. If there was anything that might have remotely endangered Bruno to the Church authorities in a cosmological sense, it would have been his beliefs in a sort of Pantheism including a plurality of worlds. In 1600, many Catholic astronomers were using the Prutenic Tables for astronomy, which were based upon Coperincus's works.

If you are looking for a good introductory book on the history of astronomy and cosmology, I recommend anything by John North or Michael Hoskin.

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2014 8:42 PM  

No, I'll pick on him all I desire. His blind assertions and religious mockery has a big audience now, and that audience is. It seeing all sides if the debate. He's done nothing worthwhile in science, and is a prop for white atheists and secularists to tout out when they want to mock Genesis and Christianity. So, pardon me if I do what I do best: ridicule the ruling class intelligentsia.

Anonymous TroperA March 10, 2014 8:43 PM  

My opinion of Tyson dropped considerably after he made a quote defending Obama's deceptions concerning the Affordable Care Act. (Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the quote at the moment, as cluttered as Google is with the Cosmos talk.)

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2014 8:43 PM  

So is Justin Bieber and Charlie Sheen. Point? My anus your tongue.

Anonymous A. Nonymous March 10, 2014 8:45 PM  

According to Soviet defector Sergei Tretyakov, the "nuclear winter" that Sagan was so exercised over was nothing more than a hoax cooked up by the KGB to strengthen the case of the nuclear disarmament movement, so this is only to be expected, really.

Anonymous Godfrey March 10, 2014 8:47 PM  

The vast majority of modern "science" isn't science at all, it's politics. Recall how "scientists" collaborated with the NSDAP (National Socialist German Labor Party) regarding eugenics? "Scientists", for the most part, are paid whores for whatever political structure they find themselves within.

Anonymous Godfrey March 10, 2014 8:48 PM  

Isn't "Cosmos" on state run television?

Anonymous Godfrey March 10, 2014 8:50 PM  

Didn't government paid "scientists" infect blacks with Syphilis in the middle of the last century?

Anonymous rycamor March 10, 2014 8:51 PM  

VD March 10, 2014 4:48 PM

People like Truth and the Scienceblogs types get all excited because someone showed pretty pictures and talked in resonant tones about science. And that will get all sorts of kids who can't read excited about science!

As if the current batch of scientists aren't dumb enough.


Maddox: You're not a nerd, geeks aren't sexy and you don't "fucking love" science.

Anonymous George of the Jungle March 10, 2014 9:00 PM  

But, but, Michio Kaku !!! How dare they overlook him! What temerity! What racism!!! How jejune! Oh, the horror !!!!

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter March 10, 2014 9:35 PM  

"Didn't government paid "scientists" infect blacks with Syphilis in the middle of the last century?"

Yeah, but those were only rogue scientists, not real scientists.

Anonymous Kneel, de Gros Tyrranis is here... March 10, 2014 9:35 PM  

My o-ring, your mouth. Manned space. It's all so very simple.

Blogger Jeff Burton March 10, 2014 9:49 PM  

"Big supporter of NASA"

All is forgiven.

Blogger tz March 10, 2014 9:50 PM  

You aren't supposed to be active and think, you are just supposed to absorb what the universe is trying to tell you through cosmosis.

I can only thank our Lord that for every idiot Christian, there are ten idiot atheists who equally show their ignorance. Armariummagnus seems to be capable of thought so might convert and be saved simply to avoid his current sycophants.

Anonymous Obvious March 10, 2014 10:12 PM  

So you're complaining that the show entitled Cosmos isn't painting religion in a good light? Gee. What're the the odds?!

Anonymous Oblivious March 10, 2014 10:23 PM  

Because the message from the Cosmos is loud, clear, and definitely not teleological. Because it says so. Whenever I look at it. On television. In reenactments of when it came into existence and did several... things, which I don't recall at the moment, but they sound scientific and look so beautiful, when it does those... things.

It's also a nice feature that it bothers to narrate the whole event for me while I'm watching.

Blogger Akulkis March 10, 2014 10:27 PM  

"I cant really disagree with the comment regarding science/engineering graduates not knowing history .. ,lets face it.. in a typical engineering program you take 1 history class (US) and sometimes no foreign language -- history degrees are for those that cant handle the math of engineering. Hey .. anyone can get a history degree --- get a library card, you can get a history degree.. not the most intellectually challenging of degrees... And especially here where there is always a big push to only study what you get a economic return and I would think the ilk would agree as well..."

When I was in engineering school at Purdue (mid-1980s), I knew VERY few engineers who weren't interested enough in history to have read dozens of books of a historical nature on their own.

However, considering how lousy the K-12 schools are at doing their job now, I would be very surprised if the same were true today.

Anonymous A. Nonymous March 10, 2014 10:43 PM  

Didn't government paid "scientists" infect blacks with Syphilis in the middle of the last century?

If you're referring to the "Tuskegee Project" (later to serve as the basis for a truly execrable bit of revisionism for Captain America's backstory in Marvel comics) IIRC, the test subjects were volunteers who had already contracted syphilis the usual way.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter March 10, 2014 10:46 PM  

"IIRC, the test subjects were volunteers who had already contracted syphilis the usual way"

True, that, but down in Central America or some other god-forsaken place, they were actually infecting the subjects with syphilis, or so it seems.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter March 10, 2014 10:49 PM  

See here, for example:

http://www.examiner.com/article/american-scientists-experiment-infecting-syphilis-prisoneers-and-patients

Of course, you can never believe anything the government says, so take it with a grain of arsenic.

Blogger Akulkis March 10, 2014 10:57 PM  

"My opinion of Tyson dropped considerably after he made a quote defending Obama's deceptions concerning the Affordable Care Act. (Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the quote at the moment, as cluttered as Google is with the Cosmos talk.)"

use the - operator, as in:
Neil Tyson -cosmos -chicken -poultry

This will EXCLUDE all pages with the word cosmos on them

Anonymous SirHamster March 10, 2014 11:45 PM  

Maddox: You're not a nerd, geeks aren't sexy and you don't "fucking love" science.


One "I fucking love science" link denigrated the use of Farenheit in the US as stupid and backwards.

It only happens to be a scientific standard for measuring temperature. But hip and cool and modern.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 10, 2014 11:51 PM  

I wonder if there will be a flare up of Copernicans vs geocentrists in the near future. There's a new documentary coming out called "The Principle" that returns to the argument that the Earth is at the center of the universe. It's a wild idea, and I'm curious to see how discussions will escalate--if they do.

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 10, 2014 11:52 PM  

"Anyone know of a few good history of science tomes one should peruse before having an opinion on the matter?"

This isn't a direct approach, but if you're really interested in the subject, Joseph Needham wrote an extensive history of Chinese science (we should really say Chinese technology and engineering) which makes for an interesting comparison, and sheds light on what we should properly call "science" as opposed to simply an advanced material culture.

"the test subjects were volunteers who had already contracted syphilis the usual way."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the heinous aspect of it was that they allowed the subjects to remain untreated over time, so as to study the progression of the disease at the expense of the patients, which sounds dreadfully unethical. But I don't have any deep knowledge of the case, just passing info-bits, so maybe I'm wrong.

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2014 11:54 PM  

"Recall how "scientists" collaborated with the NSDAP (National Socialist German Labor Party) regarding eugenics?"

Why shouldn't they?

Anonymous David of One March 10, 2014 11:57 PM  

OT ... Where $1T of "education" loans go ... just in the State of Florida ...

What the pay/salaries are for Florida College & University "employees"

Note: After about 2,000 names (100 screens worth ... just keep hitting "next") ... we finally get below $200K.

Anonymous David of One March 11, 2014 12:02 AM  

Oh! or change the lines per page.

Anonymous Bible Stumper March 11, 2014 12:08 AM  

"Neil DeGrasse Tyson was interviewed this weekend and he made the following statement (Paraphrased):

"The media has no business giving equal time to the Flat Earthers."

Amen to that!! The idea that the fantasy and fakery that is religion should should ever be given equal time in the area of science is crazy.

Hopefully, "Cosmos" will disabuse some of those watching it of their reliance on religion in matters of reality.

Anonymous Bible Stumper March 11, 2014 12:14 AM  

"By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists – like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa – and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents have usually run away to hide and scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong…."

This is only because the Bible has so very little to offer in the way of science and knowledge that it would be very difficult to pursue scientific research that hit on any biblical principals or pronouncements and therefore offend the church. But woe be them who touch on any of the very few and very silly pronouncements about reality that can be found in the Bible.

"BURN THEM" or "JAIL THEM" is the response then.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 11, 2014 12:18 AM  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the heinous aspect of it was that they allowed the subjects to remain untreated over time, so as to study the progression of the disease at the expense of the patients, which sounds dreadfully unethical.

As with so much else, you are wrong.

When the experiment started the treatment for Syphilis was as bad as the disease, so letting it take its course was not wrong.

Later on, however, antibiotics became available and became the preferable treatment for the disease. When those running the experiment chose not to administer antibiotics they became evil sons of bitches.

Also, Needham's dick was more in charge than his brain, which caused him to fail to detect lots of backdating of Chinese documents.

Anonymous Bible Stumper March 11, 2014 12:24 AM  

The ignorance on display here where science is concerned is shocking. The mapping of the human genome alone is a greater contribution to man's knowledge than anything that is found in the Bible.

This, for example, boggles the mind:
"He's done nothing worthwhile in science, and is a prop for white atheists and secularists to tout out when they want to mock Genesis and Christianity."

The last thing that will result form Cosmos are any new tools or people to necessary to mock Genesis or Christianity. This has been so efficiently done already and the tools are in great abundance.

Blogger rycamor March 11, 2014 12:40 AM  

OK, Bible Thtumper, let's have an example of said ignorance that is on display here.

BTW, your cherished human genome project lists among its leaders a certain Francis Collins, evangelical Christian. How can this be???

Anonymous Varenius March 11, 2014 12:52 AM  

...Joseph Needham wrote an extensive history of Chinese science (we should really say Chinese technology and engineering) which makes for an interesting comparison, and sheds light on what we should properly call "science" as opposed to simply an advanced material culture.

Scoobius, Needham's series is a bit dubious. It's a stunning achievement, but warped by his Sinophilia and inclination toward communism. He inflates too much into "science" and strips it of its cultural context/meaning. For example, with fengshui he blithely dismisses the vast cultural and spiritual underpinning of it and puffs it up into geophysics. Sheer nonsense for anyone with even a tiny understanding of fengshui.

Anonymous Bible Stumper March 11, 2014 1:00 AM  

"BTW, your cherished human genome project lists among its leaders a certain Francis Collins, evangelical Christian. How can this be???"

If Collins' faith played any role whatsoever in the mapping of the Human Genome, your idiotic statement would have some validity. And to answer your other question, your comment is a perfect example of ignorance on display.

Anonymous Heaviside March 11, 2014 1:07 AM  

Why should science be acessible to everyone? I don't even think we should teach the majority of people to read.

On the other hand, I think making science more democratic would be pretty interesting: Anybody should be able to publish in Nature, it's his right! Why don't we let the abiotic oil people and the cold fusioneers and the spin field theorists have access to whatever journals they like?

The Triumph of the Will is a beautiful film, and anyone who is prepared to open his heart to the glories of National Socialism can appreciate its message. Of course, it's a film for the masses, and its not supposed to exclude anybody(though there are definitely esoteric and exclusive elements of NS not open to everyone.)

I can't fault them for making a martyr out of Bruno; every movement needs a good martyr or two.

Blogger rycamor March 11, 2014 1:25 AM  

Bible Thtumper: circular reasoning will get you nowhere. Try harder. I know you can do it.

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 11, 2014 1:26 AM  

"Needham's series is a bit dubious"

Oh of course, I know he got all sorts of things wrong. The point is, you had to start somewhere. It's an interesting document as sort of the history of the history of science, viz., what did researchers in cross-cultural science history know and not know, and when did they know or not know it?

As for Bruno being a martyr, the real martyrdom came centuries later when Joyce used some of his ideas for part of the unreadable "Finnegans Wake".

Anonymous Bible Stumper March 11, 2014 1:28 AM  

"Bible Thtumper: circular reasoning will get you nowhere. Try harder. I know you can do it.

If you need the obvious made clearer, the problem isn't mine.

Anonymous kh123 March 11, 2014 1:35 AM  

Hello Mr. Tyson.

Anonymous Kneel, de Gros Tyrranis March 11, 2014 1:42 AM  

"This has been so efficiently done already and the tools are in great abundance."

I already mentioned my o-ring, and my multiverse doppelganger presented television and balls. How much clearer do I need to make this for you people?

Blogger rycamor March 11, 2014 1:55 AM  

Thtumper, I'm here to learn. Indulge me. Give me one example of ignorance on display here and actually explain why it is ignorant. It doesn't have to be me. Pick any of our current posters.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 11, 2014 2:15 AM  

Ahahahahaha! Bible Stumper got stumped.

In other news, Muslims rejects science. Kills those who teach it.

Yes, us Bible Thumpers are so bad for you science fetishists.

Go make friends with the Quoran Thumpers then.

Anonymous David of One March 11, 2014 2:22 AM  

rycamor,

Just based on the 12:14 AM post ... I wouldn't expect too much from this poor soul ... focus, context, content and grammar are a challenge ... rubbing what they probably think are their "lobes" has probably affected their cognitive development to say nothing about their inability to stop touching themselves constantly.

Immature dolt probably fantasizes about having "big" lobes and doesn't even percieve the level of his very public demonstration of the opposite.

Anonymous Rex Little March 11, 2014 2:25 AM  

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who has the lack of common sense to hang around on atheist discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy.

Would that this were the worst thing encountered on this atheist site.. Vox, it really should go back onto your Target-Rich Environments list.

Anonymous Patriot March 11, 2014 3:51 AM  

OT, an open question for Vox and the Ilk: What is going on in Hungary? According to the radio the evil right wingers have control and want a national bank and so they will control their own currency (the anti-semite Neo Nazis). Apparently they also refuse to bend over and do what the EU tells them to do.

Anonymous Frank March 11, 2014 3:58 AM  

@ Rymacor: A link to Maddox. That takes me back to the days of dial up porn and hotmail being usable.

Anonymous Diogenes March 11, 2014 3:58 AM  

**All those who exhalt Bruno today don't know shit about him, they just use him as a martyr against religion.**

Yes, how terrible. 2000 years of religious people act like 2 year olds and kill anyone who didn't toe their line, but we shouldn't mention it. Nor the fact that science has actually delivered on specific promises made by the bible, but never carried out, such as curing snake bite and diseases such as rabies. But science bad. Because bible. I am sure we will see evidence of the snake bite cures involving prayer but not anti-venom and the treatment of rabies involving the laying on of hands, but not Pasteur's vaccine or the Milwaukee Protocols any day now. Because bible. And science a fraud.

Anonymous Diogenes March 11, 2014 4:23 AM  

Tyson may have his O Rings and balls, but can that bitch do a barrel roll? Over a lake? Huh?

Didn't think so. Because bible. And my 166 IQ.

Anonymous p-dawg March 11, 2014 4:37 AM  

I love this "debate". Does the Earth revolve around the sun, or the sun around the Earth? In reality, neither. They orbit each other, and it completely depends upon your frame of reference as to which one is "the center". Frames of reference do not constitute all of reality. From the most logical perspective, that of a person on the planet Earth, the sun revolves around the Earth. Why bother with any other perspective?

Anonymous VD March 11, 2014 4:51 AM  

But science bad. Because bible.

No, science bad because nuclear weapons, genetic weapons, biological weapons, and Green Revolution. Just to name a few things.

Anonymous VD March 11, 2014 4:52 AM  

And science a fraud.

Most "science" is a fraud. This is a fact. Even the New York Times has recognized this. You're not even keeping up with your own side's talking points.

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 11, 2014 5:49 AM  

OT, but lovely all the same.....

http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/refurbished-pollock-masterpiece-goes-on-display

Now we just have to invade Australia, and bring back "Blue Poles," which they've kidnapped, the bastards.

Anonymous Diogenes March 11, 2014 7:19 AM  

VD: No, science bad because nuclear weapons, genetic weapons, biological weapons, and Green Revolution. Just to name a few things.

So I can assume that you are younger than 29 years old? Because that's the average lifespan without science. Can I also assume you have no dental work (other than extractions), no vaccinations, heat your home with a fire pit, don't wear any synthetic fabrics, and if you have had surgery, it was without anesthetic?

I also notice your double standard, science gets no credit for anything good it has done, religion gets no blame for anything bad it has done. Science fails and it is a 'fraud', religion fails and it gets a pass. Because 'testing God'.

Mind you, I'm starting to understand your special way of reading the bible. If it's inconvenient to white males, it's handwaved away or 'requires interpretation'. If it's a specific promise regarding THIS world, it doesn't need to be true because 'testing God'. If it comes to your personal safety and convenience, you go running to science while sneering at it. You ignore anything in the bible that might actually improve your moral character or treatment of other people. The only thing in the bible that you obey 100% of the time and is to be taken literally and still followed is anything that allows you to put other people (other than white males) down in some way. Strange how that work out.

But you are so smart. You didn't fall into the trap of admitting your statement regarding women submitting to their husbands with no exceptions was wrong. Far be it for you to fall into the trap of being made to admit you were wrong. You eluded that trap exactly as brilliantly as the politician in the movie 'The Dead Zone' eluded the would-be assassin's bullet.

BTW, blaming science for nuclear weapons is like blaming a hardware store for the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer drilled a hole in people's heads. Science figures out how the universe works, and devises practical ways to use that knowledge, just as a hardware store sells drill bits. If the universe works in some way that doesn't meet with your approval, such as allowing material to explode or chemicals to be altered, then you should probably complain to God about that. I'm sure you know better than God how the universe ought to operate. If you don't like what people are doing with scientific knowledge or with drill bits, it's not the job of the hardware store or science to control what people do, or limit themselves to whatever level of incompetence you feel comfortable with.

Anonymous Godfrey March 11, 2014 7:50 AM  

@Diogenes March 11, 2014 7:19 AM
"So I can assume that you are younger than 29 years old? Because that's the average lifespan without science. Can I also assume you have no dental work (other than extractions), no vaccinations, heat your home with a fire pit, don't wear any synthetic fabrics, and if you have had surgery, it was without anesthetic?"


You attribute that all to "science"? I'd say most of it is more due to economic freedom.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 11, 2014 7:54 AM  

Diogenes. What was the name of the science needed to invent the wheel?

Will wait for your response.

Good luck.

Anonymous daddynichol March 11, 2014 7:55 AM  

Bible Stumper, you said:
The mapping of the human genome alone is a greater contribution to man's knowledge than anything that is found in the Bible.

Will you please provide the scientific formula you used to measure the difference and arrive at that conclusion?

Blogger IM2L844 March 11, 2014 7:59 AM  

Ann, I mistakenly presumed that you couldn't possibly become any more proficient at Ignoratio elenchi, but, apparently, you've been practicing.

Blogger rycamor March 11, 2014 8:18 AM  

Godfrey March 11, 2014 7:50 AM

@Diogenes March 11, 2014 7:19 AM
"So I can assume that you are younger than 29 years old? Because that's the average lifespan without science. Can I also assume you have no dental work (other than extractions), no vaccinations, heat your home with a fire pit, don't wear any synthetic fabrics, and if you have had surgery, it was without anesthetic?"


You attribute that all to "science"? I'd say most of it is more due to economic freedom.


Not to mention, it is a completely ignorant notion that humans died early "before science". Or even "before civilization" for that matter. Yes there have been times when the average life expectancy was poor, but the reasons for that had nothing to do with lack of medical technology and more to do with bad nutrition, war, and city life. In other words, civilization had to solve problems created by civilization.

Anonymous VD March 11, 2014 8:23 AM  

So I can assume that you are younger than 29 years old? Because that's the average lifespan without science.

That's simply not true. You don't know what you're talking about:

"The life tables of Domitius Ulpianus used to capitalize annuities for imperial pensions indicate
an average expected Roman lifespan of around fifty-five years. Other sources indicate average
lifespans of 58.6 years for the rural clergy compared to only 17.5 years for urban slaves."


It's not science that is primarily responsible for extending human lifespan. It's sewers.

I also notice your double standard, science gets no credit for anything good it has done, religion gets no blame for anything bad it has done. Science fails and it is a 'fraud', religion fails and it gets a pass.

Totally untrue. I give science credit for the things SCIENTISTS have actually done utilizing the scientific method, both good and bad. Non-scientists not using science to develop technology is not science, no matter how desperately science fetishists keep trying to claim it. Science is far more dependent upon technology than technology is dependent upon science.

Religion is no danger to the world. It has been around since the beginning. It is science that has provided the only significant threats to human existence. Science is the problem, not religion. Eliminate religion and all the lethal problems remain. Eliminate science, and they all go away.

Along with some desirable things, admittedly. But science is a divide-by-zero good; no benefit it provides to the human race rationally justifies the existential threat it presently poses.

Anonymous VD March 11, 2014 8:29 AM  

BTW, blaming science for nuclear weapons is like blaming a hardware store for the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer drilled a hole in people's heads.

You're an ignoramus and an idiot. Scientists developed the theories, scientists developed the weapons, and a scientist actually trigged the first atomic bomb as the weaponeer on the Enola Gay.

Blogger Akulkis March 11, 2014 8:34 AM  

"In other words, civilization had to solve problems created by civilization."

Yep. Most of the Environmental movement is New Yorkers telling everyone who doesn't live like New Yorkers -- Don't live like we do.... to which I respond "*WE* don't live like that -- just you fools"

What do they say they want? Lower population densities. Anybody seen Detroit lately? 85% of the residential lots are now EMPTY. Fire up GoogleEarth and use the time-line function to compare 1960's Detroit with modern Detroit.


Of course, the solution which brought about the depopulation of the urban center is precisely what the environmentalists ALSO say they hate -- suburbs and their biggest of boogie-entities: "urban sprawl."

Anonymous Porky March 11, 2014 8:46 AM  

"So I can assume that you are younger than 29 years old? Because that's the average lifespan without science. Can I also assume you have no dental work (other than extractions), no vaccinations, heat your home with a fire pit, don't wear any synthetic fabrics, and if you have had surgery, it was without anesthetic?"

Dental fillings predate science by several thousand years, smallpox variolation was practiced by the Chinese long before science arrived, I heat my home with a fireplace, invented 1.4 million years ago, synthetic fabrics suck, and solanum anesthetics predate science by several hundred years at least.

What else you got?

Blogger rycamor March 11, 2014 8:54 AM  

VD March 11, 2014 8:29 AM

BTW, blaming science for nuclear weapons is like blaming a hardware store for the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer drilled a hole in people's heads.

You're an ignoramus and an idiot. Scientists developed the theories, scientists developed the weapons, and a scientist actually trigged the first atomic bomb as the weaponeer on the Enola Gay.


Up until the first atomic bomb was tested, even the scientists involved thought there was a chance that a single nuclear explosion could trigger a chain reaction that would destroy the whole planet. They went ahead and did it anyway. Think about that, anyone who wants to pontificate about the moral superiority of science. If you take a glance through the history of science, you will find repeated evidence of men willing to endanger you, your family, or even all of society simply to prove their theories. While you're doing this, take note of which ones were Christians and which ones weren't. I'm not saying it's a perfect line-up, but you'll see a big difference.

Anonymous RichardTHughes March 11, 2014 8:57 AM  

On this:

"BTW, blaming science for nuclear weapons is like blaming a hardware store for the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer drilled a hole in people's heads.

You're an ignoramus and an idiot. Scientists developed the theories, scientists developed the weapons, and a scientist actually trigged the first atomic bomb as the weaponeer on the Enola Gay"

I think the point is that science isn't prescriptive, it doesn't cross the is / ought divide? Scientists (Humans) did.

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 9:02 AM  

I highly doubt it. Slick production by a goofball and puppet scientist isn't swaying anyone. It's preaching to the choir. Most sophisticated adults know Tyson is a hack, and any philosophy he assets is akin to poor Mexican food--it comes up after it goes down. If it's a war the secularists want--one to eliminate religion--I say bring it. You can never say "why" in your discoveries, just "how"; and most of the time your wrong about that.

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 9:08 AM  

Exactly. Having work closely with some top-level biologists in this area (university of Ky, U of L), I can say I've not met one biologist who really believe in evolution. They have to say they do, but they personally don't. You'll find that same behavior across the board.

Anonymous Richardthughes March 11, 2014 9:11 AM  

" goofball and puppet scientist"

Research Publications

The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field
Liu, C. T.; Capak, P.; Mobasher, B.; Paglione, T. A. D.; Scoville, N. Z.; Tribiano, S. M.; and Tyson, N. D.
2008, Astrophysical Journal Letters, v.672, p.198
COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations
Scoville, N.; Abraham, R. G.; Aussel, H.; Barnes, J. E.; Benson, A.; Blain, A. W.; Calzetti, D.; Comastri, A.; Capak, P.; Carilli, C.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Carollo, C. M.; Colbert, J.; Daddi, E.; Ellis, R. S.; Elvis, M.; Ewald, S. P.; Fall, M.; Franceschini, A.; Giavalisco, M.; Green, W.; Griffiths, R. E.; Guzzo, L.; Hasinger, G.; Impey, C.; Kneib, J.-P.; Koda, J.; Koekemoer, A.; Lefevre, O.; Lilly, S.; Liu, C. T.; McCracken, H. J.; Massey, R.; Mellier, Y.; Miyazaki, S.; Mobasher, B.; Mould, J.; Norman, C.; Refregier, A.; Renzini, A.; Rhodes, J.; Rich, M.; Sanders, D. B.; Schiminovich, D.; Schinnerer, E.; Scodeggio, M.; Sheth, K.; Shopbell, P. L.; Taniguchi, Y.; Tyson, N. D.; Urry, C. M.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Vettolani, P.; White, S. D. M.; Yan, L.
2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.38
The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview
Scoville, N.; Aussel, H.; Brusa, M.; Capak, P.; Carollo, C. M.; Elvis, M.; Giavalisco, M.; Guzzo, L.; Hasinger, G.; Impey, C.; Kneib, J.-P.; LeFevre, O. S.; Lilly, J.; Mobasher, B.; Renzini, A.; Rich, R. M.; Sanders, D. B.; Schinnerer, E.; Schminovich, D.; Shopbell, P.; Taniguchi, Y.; and Tyson, N. D.
2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.1
Optical light curves of the Type IA supernovae SN 1990N and 1991T
P. Lira, et al.
1998, Astronomical Journal, v.115, p.234
(See also Erratum: 1998, Astronomical Journal, v.116, p.1006)
BVRI Light Curves For 29 Type Ia Supernovae
M. Hamuy, et al.
1996, Astronomical Journal, v.112, p.2408
The Type Ia Supernova 1989B in NGC3627 (M66)
L. A. Wells, et al.
1994, Astronomical Journal, v.108, p.2233
The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s
B. P. Schmidt, et al.
1994, Astronomical Journal, v.107, p.1444
On the Possibility of a Major Impact on the Uranus in the Past Century
Neil D. Tyson, Michael W. Richmond, Michael Woodhams, & Luca Ciotti
1993, Astronomy & Astrophysics (Research Notes), v.275, p.630
An Exposure Guide for Taking Twilight Flatfields with Large Format CCDs
Neil D. Tyson & Roy R. Gal
1993, Astronomical Journal, v.105, p.1206
Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge
Neil D. Tyson & R. Michael Rich
1991, Astrophysical Journal, v.367, p.547
On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest
Neil D. Tyson
1988, Astrophysical Journal (Letters), v.329, p.L57
Bursting Dwarf Galaxies: Implications for Luminosity Function, Space Density, and Cosmological Mass Density
Neil D. Tyson & John M. Scalo
1988, Astrophysical Journal, v.329, p.618
uvby Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789
Bruce A. Twarog & Neil D. Tyson
1985, Astronomical Journal, v.90, p.1247

Anonymous Tad's Brain March 11, 2014 9:30 AM  

On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century

Sounds interesting.

Anonymous hygate March 11, 2014 9:34 AM  

"I love this "debate". Does the Earth revolve around the sun, or the sun around the Earth? In reality, neither. They orbit each other, and it completely depends upon your frame of reference as to which one is "the center". Frames of reference do not constitute all of reality. From the most logical perspective, that of a person on the planet Earth, the sun revolves around the Earth. Why bother with any other perspective?"

Exactly, astronomers were able to predict astronomical events using pre-heliocentric models of the solar system.

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 9:52 AM  

There's nothing hear that's substantial. Peer reviews and publications in science journals is no claim to fame; it's a dime-a-dozen cult that continually rejects all and any evidence that doesn't fall in line with materialist science. See Frank Tippler

Anonymous Brother Thomas March 11, 2014 9:52 AM  

Would "science" claim Thomas Edison as one of their own? He didn't have a PhD, he was home schooled and he was a businessman and inventor.

I think small businessmen, inventors and engineers tend to be the engines of human progress. Scientists, real ones, play their part of course.

Anonymous Richardthughes March 11, 2014 9:56 AM  

Lucky we've got the arbiter of science, Hanns Strudle extra gooey, with us. Feel free to wow us with *your* science credentials that *are* impressive.

Anonymous ... March 11, 2014 10:02 AM  

Diogenes/Ann Morgan/The Atheist Cunt ... get the boot yet?

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 10:07 AM  

You presuppose that someone with no peer reviews, tv shows, or legions of internet trolls can't be critical of authoratative posturing of the ruling class intelligentsia and the junk they spew. What gives me the nerve or the right? Science is not a democracy, it's for all of us. But, if it's just for a certain group of people-a band of happy experts- to rule over, then it's not science--it's politics. If it's politics, it's corrupted. If it's corrupted, it's junk. Science has been corrupted, therefore it's junk. I will attack it as long as I chose to do so, because I know most of it is garbage. If Tyson feels the need to cross over and attack religion, something he's not qualified to do, then I'll attack his presuppositions. Stay classy, bruh.

Anonymous bottledwater March 11, 2014 10:16 AM  

"Up until the first atomic bomb was tested, even the scientists involved thought there was a chance that a single nuclear explosion could trigger a chain reaction that would destroy the whole planet. They went ahead and did it anyway."

Isn't this a myth? I used to love that story until I was convinced it was a myth (by what or whom I don't remember).

Anonymous Richardthughes March 11, 2014 10:17 AM  

You can tilt at windmills all you want, Hanns, you seem much better at being upset with science than doing science. What are the required qualifications to attack religion, Hanns? Have you thought this through?

Anonymous VD March 11, 2014 10:19 AM  

Research Publications

Yeah, and that's more than 100 less than the computer program that publishes complete gibberish. He's still a goofball who demonstrable doesn't let his ignorance about history get in the way of making a public ass of himself on the subject, Richard.

Anonymous VD March 11, 2014 10:21 AM  

What are the required qualifications to attack religion, Hanns?

Know the relevant facts. This is a qualification that is observably beyond most of the anti-religionists who opine on the subject. Their level of religious knowledge tends to be on the order of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda.

"The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself'!"

Anonymous Richardthughes March 11, 2014 10:24 AM  

I can't comment on his command of history, although it appears that the Bruno thing was wrong on some levels (I didn't watch it). I'd agree he's a goofball, which maybe isn't the worst thing for a populizer of science. I believe he's somewhat of an accommodationist and actually doesn't want a rift between science and religion. May main point is he is a scientist and has done science.

Anonymous Porky March 11, 2014 10:26 AM  

Guillermo Gonzales had upwards of 60 refereed publications and was denied tenure.

Tyson has a paltry 13 publications in almost 30 years and he becomes the most famousest scientist in the whole world. Jon Stewart said so.

Anonymous Richardthughes March 11, 2014 10:26 AM  

Hmmm. the Hebrew facts, the Greek facts or the KJV facts? ;-)

Anonymous Porky March 11, 2014 10:39 AM  

Compare to astrophysicist George Smoot who produced 13 papers in just his first 3 years.

Yep. Tyson's a hack.

Blogger Hermit March 11, 2014 10:41 AM  

@Diogenes

Dear Diogenes, living in Rome I know exactly how the modern image of Bruno was created by anticlericals. The current way Bruno is represented in popular culture is as a martyr of science and a tool to attack religion.
Your reply did not challenge what I said in my post, you just used ridicule strawman and put in my mouth things I never said like "but science is bad because Bible".

I know very well your brain is so corrupted by your secular religion that you can't possibily accepts that not every religion person who disagree with you is a crazy flat earthers with an IQ lower than 50, unfortunately this do not justify your strawman.

Also I suggest you change your username because it's unfair for the true Diogene.

Anonymous Bible Stumper March 11, 2014 10:43 AM  

"What are the required qualifications to attack religion, Hanns?

Know the relevant facts."

What "facts". Hell, just pick up the Book of Genesis, read through it, and you quickly understand that it's best to ignore the Bible entirely if you want to understand anything about the way the world operates, the laws of physics, and just about anything else.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 11, 2014 11:23 AM  

Godfrey March 11, 2014 7:50 AM
You attribute that all to "science"? I'd say most of it is more due to economic freedom.

I would say that it was indoor plumbing and hot water -- general cleanliness and good hygiene.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 11, 2014 11:34 AM  

I "watched" Cosmos. The images, the pictures, the artist interpretations ... it was beautiful art. Do people know that a lot of the images art artist renditions?

Then, this morning, just before leaving for work, I turned on the TV, the Colbert Report was on and, while putting my shoes on, I listened as Colbert interviewed Tyson. Tyson sounded so certain. What are the assumptions, I kept asking myself. Then, the beginning sequence of the Cosmos show was shown. The Big Bang, the audience exploded with cheers. (I think that people just like fireworks)

Hmmm. What was outside the point, the size of an atom, before it went ka-boom? Why it went ka-boom? Why is the event depicted not explained that it is an artists rendition and not a video of anything recorded? Why is the Big Bang depicted, erroneously, as ejecting stuff into ... what?

Anonymous The Subtle Knife March 11, 2014 12:11 PM  

Bible Stumper and Diogenes , check this out, what these tards looks like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/1969216237/

in short,,, the Bible totally FAILS as a physics textbook. Hence the bible thumpers are totally WRONG about anything regarding science.

what do you think powers your computer and the Internet on which you type? The bible (ha ha ha). No dummy. The real ANSWER is: SCIENCE!

Anonymous bottledwater March 11, 2014 12:31 PM  

You think the Bible is a physics textbook?

Blogger Longstreet March 11, 2014 12:35 PM  

I thought electricity powered my computer.

Does this mean we have to start referring to electricians as scientists? I just want to get this right....

Blogger Longstreet March 11, 2014 12:42 PM  

"If Collins' faith played any role whatsoever in the mapping of the Human Genome, your idiotic statement would have some validity."
Are you going to suggest that it didn't?

From Dr. Collins:
"Both of these choices are profoundly dangerous. Both deny truth. Both will diminish the nobility of humankind. Both will be devastating to our future. And both are unnecessary. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them."

Anonymous Toby Temple March 11, 2014 12:53 PM  

Longstreet. You cruel cruel person!

Think about Bible Stumper's feelings!!

Anonymous CLK March 11, 2014 1:03 PM  

"Yep. Tyson's a hack..."

I read many of his comments on other blogs where he hangs out at .. I think if you took the time to read him you might find that he is a reasonable person and a gentleman.

Before I agree with your assertion that he is a hack , tell me what you mean by hack by explaining in contrast how you are not a hack -- where did you get your Phd and in what subject, and what channel is your tv show on anyway ? How many presidential panels have you been on ...

I mean really .. you many not agree with all his positions - but a hack ? .. really...?



Blogger jacopo.saracini March 11, 2014 2:13 PM  

Bible Sperger doesn't understand how people with normal brains can derive understanding about reality from reading the Bible

Anonymous Porky March 11, 2014 2:17 PM  

I read many of his comments on other blogs where he hangs out at .. I think if you took the time to read him you might find that he is a reasonable person and a gentleman.

That's not what 'hack' means.

Anonymous rycamor March 11, 2014 2:36 PM  

@jacopo.saracini,

Doubly so considering this assertion: The mapping of the human genome alone is a greater contribution to man's knowledge than anything that is found in the Bible.

Shat exactly has the genome project done for our esteemed spergtroll? Yes, there is a chance that some of its offshoot medical benefits might help him(her?) at some point in life. That's a big if.

Meanwhile, the Bible has provided Thtumper with many benefits, not among the least of those being that people of such annoying personality and social disability can live in relative peace without the constant fear of having their brains beat to a pulp by bigger guys who don't care to be annoyed.

Anonymous kh123 March 11, 2014 2:47 PM  

"you many not agree with all his positions - but a hack ? .. really...?"

Is the same with Nye: These guys have some legit weight in either degrees or application. But given their frequency at hitting the soapbox extolling the virtues of an idealized/politicized form of science, that weight is light at best. Especially in comparison with others in their field who either didn't feel a need to sneer at theology at every use of rule and caliper, or those who rather believe in a purpose and law giver higher than the realm of physics.

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 2:56 PM  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B003D7JZC6 Christianity is physics.

Anonymous Seth MacFarlane March 11, 2014 3:03 PM  

Who do you trust? A bunch of old dead jews... or a Cartoon talking dog?

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 3:07 PM  

A deeper understanding of the usage of Hebrew apocolyptic literature, metaphorical usage, and the fact that The Torah or Bible aren't science books written and produced by brainwashed evolution pimps. You appeal to science and it's prostitutes as your ultimate authority, never realizing you can only answer how, not why. Genesis is still the best description--on a barebones description--that mankind has about its origins. It's not quantitative, but it's useful. If your main qualm is that science gives a different take on the cosmos, that would be in line with the ruling class's rule of no "divine foot in the door" rule, aka silencing the opposition with a vulgar display of power. Science or any of its theories have never proved the bible wrong, and with a proper understanding, reinforces it's message,

Anonymous Don March 11, 2014 3:10 PM  

Bible Thumper = Tad? Ann just cannot stay away either. Really they should start their own websites and sock puppet each other. You don't need to read most of what they write it simply repeats.

Blogger Unknown March 11, 2014 3:13 PM  

Mocking is one thing; an actual proof is a whole other animal, boy. There are tons of books mocking atheists, too.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 11, 2014 3:56 PM  

"What "facts". Hell, just pick up the Book of Genesis, read through it, and you quickly understand that it's best to ignore the Bible entirely if you want to understand anything about the way the world operates, the laws of physics, and just about anything else."

Such as "do not kill/murder" and "do not give false testimony" and "do not steal" and "love your enemies" and "love others as you love yourself" and "do to others as you would like others do to you" and etc.

Yeah. Materialists, existentialist, evolutionists will definitely give us a more peaceful "natural selection" life.

Blogger Hermit March 11, 2014 4:52 PM  

What "facts". Hell, just pick up the Book of Genesis, read through it, and you quickly understand that it's best to ignore the Bible entirely if you want to understand anything about the way the world operates, the laws of physics, and just about anything else.
"The Book of Genesis is not an astrophysics textbook therefore the Bible is wrong about EVERYTHING."

Your ridicolous phrase is a wonderful argument against atheists, every person with a normal brain can see how stupid your views are.

Also tell me more of how the Bible is useless in understanding the human condition.

Anonymous Varenius March 11, 2014 6:25 PM  

Regarding Tyson's publications, it's important to note that he has primary authorship on only 5 of the 13, and one of those seems to be simply a technical review (the CCDs paper). So it appears there are only 4 papers where he was significantly involved in real science.

Still, that beats Dawkins!!!

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2014 9:54 PM  

I know, right? The current scientists are so dumb! Thank God we were able to pray the internet into existence so you could say as much for an audience of people who care little to nothing about your life outside of your wonderfully insightful comment here. - John Devilman

Blogger Paul, Dammit! March 11, 2014 11:22 PM  

Making the switch from working stiff-grade scientist to political commentator is the kiss of death for subject matter expertise. All the soapbox-standing loudmouths share one common thread- having taken a step back from cutting edge contribution to the sum of human knowledge. They've all given up production for didactic repackaging. Tyson and Nye are to science what the art museum docent is to the Old Masters.

Anonymous Leonidas March 12, 2014 12:30 AM  

The readers of this thread will enjoy this:

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd

Anonymous Diogenes March 12, 2014 12:34 AM  

Let me put it this way: I suspect if everyone here who sneers at science were made to live for an entire month without the use of electricity (including any product that used electricity in it's manufacture or transportation), by the end of the month they would be begging to throw all their bibles on the nearest nuclear pile to get the lights back on.

Anonymous Leonidas March 12, 2014 12:35 AM  

My bad, I missed that someone already posted it.

Anonymous kh123 March 12, 2014 1:15 AM  

The biggest loss to society sans science is that we wouldn't be able to quantify Ann Morgan's I.Q. and thus collectively be in awe of it.

Since computers (and by extension Powerpoint) wouldn't be able to display all of this.

Because we'd be too busy reading our Bibles and judging/jihading eachother to give much of a f*** about running a hydroelectric power station.

It's all interconnected - but ultimately it only points back to Ann.

FYI.

Anonymous bottledwater March 12, 2014 1:49 AM  

"Let me put it this way: I suspect if everyone here who sneers at science were made to live for an entire month without the use of electricity (including any product that used electricity in it's manufacture or transportation), by the end of the month they would be begging to throw all their bibles on the nearest nuclear pile to get the lights back on."

Not only is there no piñata here, José, you have no stick.

Blogger Duke of Earl March 12, 2014 3:00 AM  

Since people have lived comfortably for thousands of years without electricity a month without it might be a time of relaxation from the stress of the daily grind. Living off the land, hunting, cooking over an open fire? It doesn't sound too bad, at least for 28 days. Of course the harnessing of electricity, and the machines that use it, owes more to engineering than science.

As for the Flat Earth society. Daniel Shenton, the head of the Flat Earth society, believes in both evolution and global warming. So now feel free to call believers in evolution and global warming, "Flat Earthers".

Blogger Akulkis March 12, 2014 3:47 AM  

A month without electricity and other modern conveniences????

Wow... sounds like a typical army field exercise back when I was a young private. Even if there was electricity out in the field, privates weren't allowed any near a place with electrical service.

Mzzzzzzzz Morgan is soft...very, very, very soft. Her grandma would be ashamed.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 12, 2014 8:35 AM  

"Let me put it this way: I suspect if everyone here who sneers at science were made to live for an entire month without the use of electricity (including any product that used electricity in it's manufacture or transportation), by the end of the month they would be begging to throw all their bibles on the nearest nuclear pile to get the lights back on."

You must have led a very sheltered and soft life.

Blogger IM2L844 March 12, 2014 8:46 AM  

Let me put it this way: I suspect if everyone here who sneers at science were made to live for an entire month without the use of electricity (including any product that used electricity in it's manufacture or transportation), by the end of the month they would be begging to throw all their bibles on the nearest nuclear pile to get the lights back on.

And your point is what? That there are a lot of people who will compromise their personal integrity to avoid torture? There are probably a lot of things that you normally wouldn't do, but you would quickly do if someone held a knife to your throat. On the other hand, there is a documented myriad of principled Christians who have sacrificed their lives rather than deny their truth. The same can't be said of atheists. If you want to go head to head over who on average is the most principled in word and deed, I think you'll lose on every count. And I would say there is a higher mix of uncompromising Christians around here than in your average church.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 12, 2014 9:57 AM  

Yep; shortest book in history, "The Encyclopaedia of Atheist Martyrs."

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 12, 2014 10:37 AM  

It was not a month but 10 days but, that is what we did post Ike, here in Houston, Clear Lake, to be more precise. No fences, cooking outside. Cooking in the front yard a couple of times, with neighbors bring food to cook and share. It was sad to have the fences back up, necessary, but sad. It was a great time.

Diogenes, you ought to try camping once in a while. It will make you ready and, actually, it will make you look forward to it.

Are you require science to figure out how to make things that work, without trying to explain the whys? (rhetorical question and I hope you do know the answer)

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 12, 2014 10:42 AM  

To clarify. I had setup an outside kitchen in my backyard. I have outside cookers, iron skillets, a fire box, wood, over 100 gallons of potable water, etc. I had the setup and the space. Most of the cooking and feeding of neighbors was done in my backyard for the 10 days. Most of the day we spent clearing up tree debris. Maybe that invalidates the proposed test.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist March 12, 2014 9:36 PM  

Lest we forget, this whole idea that science/technology and religion are so incompatible as to be mutually exclusive is a very modern one. It's one that was held by nearly nobody in the United States, or really the whole western world, as late as 30 years ago. Remember that as Apollo 8 orbited the Moon, Frank Borman, with NASA's full approval, read a prayer over the radio to be sent back to Earth. The New Atheists created this false choice between science and religion and, based on some relatively minor incidents from history, fomented it into a full-scale war. This is all, entirely, 100% about 1) self-aggrandizement and 2) a leftist political agenda.

"If the electricity was turned off for 30 days, all you Christians would..." What the fuck are you talking about, man? Who made that a choice we all had to make? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist March 12, 2014 9:54 PM  

"I don't trust a book that has served as the moral and philosophical basis for high civilizations over thousands of years. Instead, I'll turn to a guy who makes poop jokes and bad 80s references on a cartoon show to explain the universe to me".

Get the fuck outta here...

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box March 13, 2014 7:31 AM  

Since much of what passes for "science" today is pagan earth-bitch-worship based mysticism (AGW/CC scare-tactics & fear-mongering), it would be great if atheists actually lived up to their name-claim & didn't engage in superstition.

Blogger Ryu238 December 29, 2018 7:45 PM  

"At least one atheist is aware of the historical illiteracy of his co-irreligionists:" who is a moron and a liar. http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-lie-that-never-dies-christian.html

Also you miss the point: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/15/missing-the-point-of-giordano-bruno/

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts