Neil deGrasse Tyson: SO THAT WOULD BE A NO...

[Playinghardball]

[Wounded Bear]

1. K & R...for awesomeness...

[Deep13]

2. Science is about finding the truth, ...

... not inventing a persuasive narrative.

[villager]

4. True. It's politics that's about inventing a persuasive narrative. Usually a toxic one.

Which, as a writer, also struggling to hatch narratives, kinda pains me.

[Hekate]

18. It's our nature to create narratives, and to live them, so much so that one writer...

... semi-seriously posits that one of the aspects of being human is containing an element he calls narrativium. (That would be Terry Pratchett.)

As a mythologist I agree with him. Even scholars -- even scholars of science -- have a narrative running in their heads. Depth psychologists recognize it's important to acknowledge and explore that part of yourself. No one can ever attain the kind of godlike objectivity that formerly was claimed by scholars of all stripes.

[villager]

22. Even Heisenberg (not the "Breaking Bad" one! ;-) ) would agree, or perhaps especially so

That's one thing that those who laud only science -- and much science is laudable -- forget; scientists themselves are working within the "narratives" of their cultures, which tends to shape and affect what kinds of research gets done, how it gets done, etc..

[Feral Child]

32. You mean I can *never* make it stop?

It's just awful and I don't want to listen anymore.

[Hekate]

45. Speaking of paradigms...

You can try either depth psychology or Buddhism, or both, if you want to examine/change the narrative that keeps running in your head.

Just sayin'

[Feral Child]

73. Isn't that just another

"voice"?


It's already a tenement in there.

[Hekate]

79. Nope. Buddhism in particular quiets the "monkey mind" that keeps hopping about. nt

[Feral Child]

80. Okay, I've been kidding.

I'm sort of familiar with the basic concepts of Zen.

I also don't really have voices in my head.

Ok, that one, but it's the same one I'm using to talk to you now.

Sorry if pulling your leg was out of line, I thought you were playing along but now I'm not sure.

[greatlaurel]

3. Kick!

[Brainstormy]

5. Love it! n/t

[heaven05]

6. His intelligence

Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)

scares the hell out of the RW dingbat crazies. And also people with not all their candles burning.

[StevieM]

56. In their minds he is ignorant. All scientists are. (eom)

[rhett o rick]

7. Dear religions, "Science is not there for you to cherry pick." nm

[rock]

8. And what would the balance to the truth be?

Oh yeah, some creationists talking!

[Phlem]

9. K&R!

-p

[spanone]

10. they are free to produce their own ignorant teevee show.

[yuiyoshida]

23. You know, one day they will get their wish and

TV Networks will allow them to teach their views on Creationism.. And probably many will think that is the way of the world because their God said so.. We are on a slow train..heading back into the Dark Ages.. It sure seems like it.

[calimary]

38. At this rate we need to redefine the whole notion of "American exceptionalism."

Thanks to these idiots (professional idiots by now), "American exceptionalism" is defined as the "right" to be exceptionally stupid. Bronze Age, anyone?

[Enthusiast]

76. They have been redefining American exceptionalism since the 2000 election.

[caraher]

50. They have lots of them

Generally populated with preachers pleading for donations...

[jtuck004]

61. They could call it Fox News. n/t

[nxylas]

70. Don't they already have inroads into the Discovery network?

ISTR reading that the various Discovery channels had been criticised for peddling pseudoscience. I don't think they'd flat out teach creationism, but they might slip creationist teachings in by the back door.

[Hekate]

11. Neil de Grasse Tyson has just entered my small pantheon of heroes

Religion and Science have two entirely different paradigms and methods of inquiry.

[enlightenment]

15. Mine, too. nt

[chervilant]

74. Mine, three...

He's SUPER HOT in that galaxy vest!

[Iliyah]

12. K & R

I would think with all the corporate money that Creationist have they could set up their own tv series, although I'm pretty sure they would be a laughing and debunked 99.9%.

[awoke_in_2003]

13. Maybe they should start their own show...

I am sure it will be as popular as the lame ass xtian movies that have been popping up lately.

[Maedhros]

30. They do keep TRYING to push this stuff in the media

with stuff like the "Left Behind" series and "Atlas Shrugged," but it just isn't catching on.

That's what they are really angry about. It's not that Cosmos presents science without creationism, it's that Cosmos is wildly popular in the media and their crap isn't.

[awoke_in_2003]

47. You have a point. nt

[pangaia]

52. Excuse me. The LIBERAL media.

Of course.

[elzenmahn]

31. It's not as though there's a lack of conservatives in Hollywood...

...the guy that produced "24" isn't exactly left-leaning, and there are, perhaps, a few d-listers with some extra $$$ laying around that might want to take a stab at such a thing.

Kirk Cameron, perhaps?

And he can have his banana buddy (Ray Comfort, I think) hosting it - from the Creation Museum!

[awoke_in_2003]

48. I have missed it

I never watch TV anymore.

[Hutzpa]

14. They thought everyone is as deranged

as they are, gotto love deGrasse Tyson.

[lamp_shade]

16. Perfect!! Just posted to facebook.

[Duppers]

17. great comments here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101688812

[Warren DeMontague]

19. He should try to be more tolerant... of flat-out bullshit.

Or maybe not.

[Blue Owl]

26. Actually, the bullshit is spherical

[Takket]

20. Creationists have had the platform all to themselves for a few thousand years

Don't whine now that, despite their best efforts, the truth of existantce is finally being brought from the shadows into the light.

[whopis01]

34. But they've only had 6,000 years while the real universe has had billions! It just isn't fair! n/t

[NealK]

21. Love that man. K&R.

[npk]

24. How long does it take to say "Santa Jesus is real and evolution is the work of the devil"

What like 5 seconds! I mean what are they going to present? It's not like they have any evidence to fill a real hour long program with. We've all heard their silly shit over and over again, and every one of their so called pieces of "biblical fact" has been proven false.

[lastlib]

66. oh, they can twist a few thousand facts and scientific principles beyond the point of recognition...

... and fill several tv shows with bullshit. They're masters of it!! They can't dazzle listeners with brilliance (since they have none), so they baffle 'em with bullshit. You should see what theyve done with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example. They take a well-established principle and build a shitload of crap around it, and pronounce it as their factual theory of how creationism is right and evolution is wrong. Amazing how they can be so fucking wrong, and proud of it, and use it to confound their unsophisticated followers who then go around thinking that they're brilliant, and evil-oo-shun is EE-ville! Republicans take lessons from these people.

[npk]

69. Good points

Sadly they have mastered the art of bullshit.

[safeinOhio]

25. Demand equal airtime?

Why not just pray for it?

[A Simple Game]

27. Interesting, liberals are not the only group that want to bring back the fairness doctrine.

Perhaps there is hope after all.

[Avalux]

29. Nope. The motive behind wanting fairness is completely different.

Liberals want fairness to promote the truth, Creationists (and similar fearful groups) want fairness to promote lies.

[Iliyah]

35. AGREED

[A Simple Game]

59. Do I really need to start adding the sarcasm smilie on obvious sarcasm?

No one expects Creationists, or Conservatives, or Republicans to want the fairness doctrine to return, ever.

[Avalux]

63. In all fairness (no pun intended haha)

I'm not familiar with your posts so wasn't sure if it was sarcasm. Next time I run across one I'll know.

[Lex]

49. The "fairness doctrine" applied to scientific facts?

Huh, who knew.

[A Simple Game]

60. It was sarcasm. n/t

[Lex]

64. Um, mine was too. nt

[ChisolmTrailDem]

28. People who believe Earth is flat are likely the same who think the moon landings never happened and

therefore view NASA as discredited.

[Feral Child]

33. I'm most impressed

with how he's handling the series and it's detractors.


He's not going to appease them. He's presenting science and won't pretend that the opposition is valid.

[Moonwalk]

36. Does this mean the science folk can get equal time on the 700 Club and other religious programs?

I mean, if they're going to call foul on one-sidedness, then they have to give up some hours on their own programs to the other side, right? (that was a rhetorical question. I know the only want to shout their own views and shut down any opposing views...)

[OnlinePoker]

37. Have I slipped into an alternate reality?

TLC, History Network, Discovery Channel all broadcast crappy reality series and Fox is showing a hard-core science show presented by an agnostic? I think my head is going to explode.

[cui bono]

40. Fox Television is different than Fox News Channel.

The Simpsons has been on Fox for 20 years!

[Bandit]

41. I do believe they are owned by the same people though.

[cui bono]

43. Ultimately yes, probably. But they are different divisions.

And they have different purposes.

Even the Fox local channel news is completely different than Fox News Channel. It's normal local news, just like any other local channel's news.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Murdoch loves money, Ailes loves rightwing nut-jobbery.

[cui bono]

39. I actually think "cherry pick" is the wrong term.

Deny or ignore is more like it.

[Gothmog]

42. The fact that the conservative nut cases hate this show is wonderful

I really love this show

[mountain grammy]

44. I see Cosmos as equal time for truth, reality, sanity, and science

against the rabid religious dogma that's crammed down our throats by corporate right wing media and elected demagogues given a free pass to preach to us daily basis until nearly half of all Americans think evolution is just a theory.

The growth of science denial in America is alarming. We NEED Cosmos and Neil deGrasse Tyson more than we ever have.

[lame54]

46. It's only fair - they talk up the legitimacy of evolution in churches - don't they?

[stage left]

51. K&R

No, creationists, your ignorance is not as good as Neil DeGrasse Tyson's knowledge. I'm still a little bummed about Pluto, though.

[colsohlibgal]

53. Facts, Evidence, None Of It Matters To Those True Believers

I can't imagine going through life with your head in the sand.

I am so thankful I was brought up as free agent, nobody brainwashed me to believe this or that when quite young or ever. I was quite close to my paternal grandmother who was religious but it was her own thing/crutch and she never tried to force any of this on anyone.

I applaud Neil for standing strong and talking truth - though again, this won't put a dent in the holy rollers.

I hope this show might be a turning point and help many young people respect that sometime it is what it is, carbon dating and other things show that the earth and universe(s) are not 6,000 year old, it's undeniable though they try.

[kelliekat44]

54. Don't they already have a gazillion religious shows on TV especially every Sunday? No one gets equa

time on Creflo Dollar, or Jimmy Schwaagart. Kenneth Copeland or the hundred other religious shows.

[gulliver]

55. Cool guy. Excellent show. nt

[NewJeffCT]

57. If the creationists want time for creationism

I will demand time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the story of how he/she/it blessed our planet with its noodly appendage.

(is it spelled noodly or noodley?)

[niyad]

68. either works. ramen!

[bvf]

58. But it would be fun to see both "sides" presented in an episode:

"... on the other hand, there is a large contingent of nitwits out there who still believe the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old and people used to live well into their 900s. Seriously."

There's ignorance, then there's willful ignorance.

[harun]

62. Just because you have heard both sides of a story does not mean you have heard the truth.

[eShirl]

65. I'm sorry, I can't hear you

over the sound of how awesome Science is

[Moostache]

67. They were mistaking "cafeteria X-tians" with science...FAIL. (n/t)

[Nanjing to Seoul]

71. Dear religious cultists. . .your ideas are debunked, discredited and defeated.

The scientific method will always be more objective and answer finding than "well, I just believe."

[Stellar]

75. Just love him...lmao!!!

[Enthusiast]

77. This post has hundreds of recommendations. And rightly so.

[Gothmog]

78. NDT is not ignoring Creationism

Tyson is not ignoring creationism, he is taking the basic precepts apart and apply science to these concepts http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/25/3418425/creationism-is-getting-a-lot-of-time-on-cosmos/

Actually, Tyson is deliberately and straightforwardly giving a whole lot of time to creationism. Why did we have to sit through the history of the eyeball? Creationists love to argue that the complexity of the eyeball disproves evolution. Note how he talked specifically about how the eyeball isn’t actually this perfect mechanism, but something that works well enough for what we need it for, but not as well as it does in fish — the whole idea that the eyeball is a perfect, too-complex thing is a creationist argument.

Another example: Why did Tyson spend so much time explaining the similarities and differences in how polar bears have evolved through natural selection vs. how dogs have changed in the time we’ve been breeding them for certain traits? Because creationists acknowledge that changes within species happen. They just like to pretend like one kind of organism couldn’t really have brought forth another kind of organism.

Tyson isn’t ignoring creationism. Creationists wish Tyson were ignoring creationism. Tyson is instead standing on creationism’s home turf and playing by their rules. (Every episode we’ve seen so far has contrasted the Church’s approach to these issues with science’s approach. I’ve read some complaints that Cosmos is too much in love with that old story where everything happens in Europe until white people arrive in the Americas and then some stuff gets to happen here too. But I think that complaint also misunderstands that the history of Christianity as its taught to American Christians is, by and large, that story — everything happens in Europe until some stuff starts to happen here). Tyson is taking creationists’ claims deadly seriously, and showing all the ways they’re wrong....

What creationists are upset about is that it’s not a discussion that bothers to treat their ideas like they have any scientific merit. After all, any good scientific question should eventually lead to an answer that generates more questions. Creationism short-circuits that process, instead arguing that there’s an end to questions — that, eventually, you can drill down enough to get to God — God did it or God willed it to be. No more questions needed.

That just can’t be a valid scientific approach. And, so far, week after week, that’s been the subtext to Cosmos.

I really love the way that Tyson is handling these issues which is why the creationists religious nutcases are so upset