Cosmology Naturalism News

But what difference, at this point, does it make if Tyson fabricates quotes?

Spread the love

Someday, some of our friends need to learn the difference between modernist and post-modernist culture.

Apparently, Neil deGrasse Tyson has been caught manufacturing out of paper blowing past a “quote” by former US Prez G.W. Bush (one would guess, not one of Tyson’s faves).

To understand why it doesn’t matter, forget Carl Sagan and Cosmos I. Sagan had to make it before post-modernism really took hold. So he had to stick to a generally accepted story. Tyson’s Cosmos II could be a list of pet secularist causes rather than post-Cosmos I science achievements, flop at box, and nonetheless be run through the compulsory school system.

In a post-modern environment, people can say anything they want and compel others to accept it because that is the closest substitute for truth that a nihilist society can achieve.

So the Tyson quote is “true” in the sense that Tyson’s audience believes it. As in Hollywood, the authentic sound, irrespective of fact, is what counts in the long run.

Readers can readily see how that helps discredited Darwinism. It must be accepted if it is honestly believed by approved people. Especially if believed by soulful people.

See also: The importance of the fact that Darwinism is a story (Darwinism’s demise would leave too great a hole in many lives to be contemplated. So it never is. No matter what.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

12 Replies to “But what difference, at this point, does it make if Tyson fabricates quotes?

  1. 1
    DavidD says:

    Well, I do believe you answered your own question in the title here.

    “So the Tyson quote is “true” in the sense that Tyson’s audience believes it. As in Hollywood, the authentic sound, irrespective of fact, is what counts in the long run.”

    Lying and deception are evolutionary adaptations to keep the right religion on it’s politically correct evolutionary course. This was never hard to figure out in the first place. Lying is ok if it’s done for the greater good. Reminds me of a scriptural text that says,

    Isaiah 5:20 (Amplified Bible)

    20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

    They’ve been hell bent on a mission to undermine every traditional idea, belief and concept and moulding the world of humankind in their vision for it by redefining everything we’ve ever known and understood. Definition shell gaming has played a major role in this.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    Truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not — Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    To lie is to speak with disregard to truth, in the hope of profiting by what is said or suggested being thought to be true — adapted, Wiki art on Lying, 2011 (NB: long since shredded by the wikipedians, but captured and held on to elsewhere . . . )

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one — Jesus, Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5:37

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    People like deGrasse Tyson, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Paul Z. Myers and others are just the outward manifestation of a paradigm in danger of extinction. It’s kind of like all the Islamic Jihadist movements who are facing extinction in the age of the internet. What we are seeing is their death throes.

  6. 6
    shabidoo says:

    Tyson was not caught manufacturing quotes. He got a quote wrong. It’s a very serious claim to accuse an intelectual of quote fabrication. I wouldn’t even accuse a student of doing this unless I came across more than one and later discussed it with him/her. If I still believed they fabricated the quote I would still only make the accusation if I could make a very convincing argument that the quote was fabricated.

    The federalist did not present a convincing case that these quotes were fabricated. The articles spouted a lot of angry venom and a few other wild accusations but these blog posts should be treated for what they are and not the accusations that have not been well defended.

  7. 7
    Barry Arrington says:

    shabidoo,

    Typical wagon circling. Very sad. Tyson accused Bush of saying something he did not say. If that does not count as quote fabrication in your book, then you need a new book. It is almost certainly closer to the truth that if an ID proponent had engaged in similar shenanigans, you would have been screaming bloody murder. Add double standard to wagon circling.

  8. 8
    tintinnid says:

    “Neil deGrasse Tyson may be a fabulous scientist, and a consummate showman, but he’s downright terrible at accurately quoting people”.

    Then he should be in good company here.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Someone cited this following article the other day and I just now got around to reading it. It, IMHO, was well worth the read,,,

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski –
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the m ore opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf
    podcast:
    http://veritas.org/talks/profe.....t-atheist/

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Sean Davis as cited from the linked in the OP:

    >>According to Tyson, in the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush uttered the phrase, “Our God is the God who named the stars.” According to Tyson, the president made that claim as a way of segregating radical Islam from religions like Christianity or Judaism . . . .

    Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims.

    As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false. Every one! Then there’s Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis. Yep, that’s false, too . . . .

    Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims.

    As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false. Every one! Then there’s Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis. Yep, that’s false, too. Add embarrassing biblical illiteracy to Tyson’s list of accomplishments on his CV.

    First off, Bush never uttered the quote attributed to him by Tyson. He did, however, include a separate but similar phrase in a February 2003 speech immediately following the Columbia space shuttle disaster:

    > In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.”

    The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.>

    . . . .

    Tyson butchered the quote. He butchered the date. He butchered the context. He butchered the implication. And he butchered the biblical allusion, which was to the prophet Isaiah, not the book of Genesis (you can tell Bush was alluding to Isaiah because he explicitly said he was referencing Isaiah).

    Bush’s statement about the Creator had nothing to do with making “us” look better than “them”: it was an attempt to comfort the families who lost loved ones in the crash. They weren’t nameless creatures who passed anonymously; their ultimate Creator, the one who knit them together in their mothers’ wombs, mourned them by name . . . >>

    Notice the polarising, demonising intent of the citation as highlighted, and the lack of foundation on the merits.

    Then observe the turnabout attempt above.

    It is time for fresh thinking.

    KF

  11. 11
  12. 12
    jstanley01 says:

    I think Tyson missed his true calling, as a carnival barker hawking Ginsu knives at the State Fair.

    She slices, she dices, she crawls on her belly like a reptile!

Leave a Reply