Culture Intelligent Design Naturalism Science

March for Science: Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks science denial dismantles democracy

Spread the love

Article Image From Tracy Staedler at LiveScience:

Renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson urges Americans to become more scientifically literate in a short video he posted yesterday (April 19) on his Facebook page.

In the video he titled “Science in America,” Tyson comments on 21st-century attitudes toward science, explaining the importance of the scientific method and making the case that science denial could erode democracy.

“Dear Facebook Universe,” he wrote. “I offer this four-minute video on ‘Science in America’ containing what may be the most important words I have ever spoken. As always, but especially these days, keep looking up.”

Poseur. Democracy gets dismantled mainly when not believing the government of the day becomes a crime.

In about 30 seconds, Tyson explains how hypothesis and experimentation, fundamental ingredients of the scientific method, lead to emergent truths. “The scientific method does it better than anything else we have ever done as human beings,” he said. More.

One wonders, would Dr. Tyson like to comment on recent trends in which post-normal “post-truth,” and post-fact are finding a place in science, that objectivity is seen as  sexist or worse?

Don’t be surprised if some grievance-inspired Marchers hold those very views. They pose a more serious threat to science than anyone who just doesn’t believe current dogmas (but thinks that right answers do exist in principle.)

See also: Texas: The icons of evolution are STILL on welfare after all these years? Maybe the honor of mathematics is to get things right, as Prof Marks suggests, but the honor of the Darwin lobby is to shove in the world’s face the fact that it can compel a download of tax money by unleashing an End-of-Science! rent-a-protest at every meeting on the subject.

Marchin’, marchin’ for Science (Hint: the problems are back at your desk, not out in the streets)

Tyson bombshell: Universe likely just computer sim Twenty-first century, meet your science.

and

How did “populism” become a dirty word? A left-wing journalist offers some thoughts

Follow UD News at Twitter!

22 Replies to “March for Science: Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks science denial dismantles democracy

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    The scientific method does it better than anything else we have ever done as human beings

    Unless someone tells me the video is worth watching, I won’t watch it, considering the source.

    In any case, 1) what exactly is the scientific method that NdGT is touting? and 2) what happens when he applies it to something like climate or a beginning human life?

    Andrew

  2. 2
    News says:

    asauber at 1: Tyson bombshell: Universe likely just computer sim Twenty-first century, meet your science.

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    News,

    Is there there a way I can say my scientific method returns the result that NdGT is a bleeping idiot, without involving gratuitous name calling?

    Andrew

  4. 4
    News says:

    asauber3, possibly, but you need not trouble yourself.

    NdGT is doing all the heavy lifting when it come to discrediting himself – among persons who still know what the term “listen to reason” means.

    You can save yourself time and money by avoiding his digital presence, and that of many other March for Science poseurs.

  5. 5
    harry says:

    Okay Neil, let’s talk about science denial.

    Why do you deny the obvious implications of modern science’s discovery that the natural Universe — time, space, matter and energy — had a beginning? From nothing — in terms of the absence of time, space, matter and energy — nothing comes. Yet that which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. The implication is, of course, that the cause of the natural Universe must have been a supernatural reality that transcends the natural.

    Why do you deny the obvious implications of modern science’s discovery that life at the cellular level is ultra-sophisticated, self-replicating, digital-information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond our own? Technology is defined as the application of knowledge for a purpose. The implication is, of course, that one of the causal factors in the emergence of the nanotechnology of life must have been intelligent agency. You find a way to ignore the fact that there are no known instances of digital-information-based technology emerging mindlessly and accidentally, yet science perverted by atheism insists that somehow mindless, accidental abiogenesis took place, relying on a naturalism of the gaps. Somehow nature-did-it.

    Science denial such as yours dismantles rationality. That is the biggest threat to democracy.

  6. 6
    bill cole says:

    I think science denial is rarely from evidence based on the scientific method. It is from theories like evolution and climate change that are not based on the scientific method. Neil is confused.

    He claims that climate change is science. It would be interesting how he supports this claim.

  7. 7
    Origenes says:

    Science, Neil, is not to be equated with perverted naturalistic interpretations of carefully selected scientific facts.

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:

    Of course you won’t watch it asauber, because Tyson is articulate and makes sense.

    The number of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort,David Rives, Dembski, Wells etc, videos I’ve waded through, means I am very qualified to understand unsubstantiated codswallop when I sniff it.

    Don’t watch Tyson, don’t watch Coyne, and don’t watch Shubin, keep watching the above examples of piercing curiosity, and live in a hutch.

    The number of awards, and recognition, Tyson has recieved is a mark of his output, and his contributions to science understanding. (I believe in 2000 he recieved the sexiest Astrophysicist alive award from People mag; hard to beat. But then we are only dealing with Dembski, Wells etc.)

    If, ‘sexy’, doesn’t swing the argument, then just google his work output; the man is prodigeous, relavent, and known, three qualities in science quarters unknown in ID circles.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    asauber says:

    A man who has been drinking his own bathwater for years

    Looks like rvb8 is in the tub, too! 😉

    Andrew

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    I enjoy good speakers. Men and women who articulate science and ideas clearly and in a publically accessadble way. Tyson and Dawkins meet this description.

    Dembski (who has largely dissapered), Behe (whose court performances are abortive),Wells, (who has book launches with dozens in attendence), and Berlinski (who is a legend in his own mind), do not.

    This is not knit picking, it is fact. Coyne’s, Dawkin’s, Shubin’s, Hawking’s etc, etc, contributions to the public understanding of science make the above mentioned Dembski et al, look like twittering schoolgirls, not invited to the popular girl’s party.

    Also, when is the latest science due from Biologos, Informetrics Lab, AIG Science (Heh:) Journal, or whatever other psudo publication ID is in cahoots with?

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    I believe in 2000 he recieved the sexiest Astrophysicist alive award from People mag; hard to beat. But then we are only dealing with Dembski, Wells etc.

    To be fair, Dembski & Wells aren’t astrophysicists.

  13. 13
    mikeenders says:

    Of course you won’t watch it asauber, because Tyson is articulate and makes sense.

    Watched it myself and its one of the poorest argument I have ever heard Tyson make. Worse its demonstrably historically false. Our democracy was built without reference to climate change, Evolution or vaccination. To claim we became this shining nation because of science and technology ignores that our ancestors wrote our founding documents under the lighting power of candles. We became industrious, were at times committed to principles that led to greatness by our ethos and beliefs not our discoveries. They were fruits of that ethos.

    People don’t want to listen to Tyson sometimes not because of his science but by his corruption of it in the service of his philosophical commitment to atheism – which like it or not is not a belief that Science speaks to. He has now developed a history of even distorting the historical record in a quest to negate the good influences of religion on history.

    Nothing can be ever rational when its based on a fallacy. In this case two.

    A) A strawman. there is not a widespread “Science denial” in this country. We have people who in good faith disagree on climate change. Most of us vaccinate our kids, use technology (gleefully) , and get immediate medical attention and check ups as needed – ALL OF WHICH IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF SCIENCE. Even evolution would be more greatly adhered to if it was not wrapped in an unscientific veil of materialism which the very person in question propagates.

    B) Veiled appeals to consensus authority as science.

    For some reason a number of “new atheists” are not content to merely say the best science disagrees with this position or that at this time. There is almost a NEED to go beyond that to overreach and claim that the people who are not convinced by the existing science are, at the heart of it, deniers of science in general. Amusingly, its a tactic not so different from the very thing materialists point to the church as doing – “If you don’t agree with the church on this thenyou are anti Christ”.

    The slur is supposed to exert pressure on those with a disagreement on merely a sliver of scientific issues and to sound a false alarm that science itself generally is under attack – which is just balderdash.

  14. 14
    AveryM says:

    I just want to say, as an evolutionist and non-Christian, that Darwin’s Doubt is the greatest work of science writing I am aware of by any living writer, besides Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics”.

    Stephen Meyer understands what science is and how it really works, and is able to communicate it precisely, in the way that Stephen Jay Gould did a generation before him. The responses to the book from the evolutionist side were, literally without exception, poorly written and poorly thought gatekeeping with only a fragile base of evidence behind their bluster, just like Tyson’s “science denial” bogeyman here.

    If you’re going to praise science communicators, then be fair. Tyson and Bill Nye are utterly incompetent, and Hawking is only average. rvb8 is clearly trolling.

  15. 15
    rvb8 says:

    AveryM,

    your writing doesn’t sit well with your ‘evolutionist non-Christian’ pedigree.

    ‘Darwwin’s Doubt’ is the, ‘greatest work of science writing I am aware of’? Bloody hell man! Seriously? A book savaged by your fellow, ‘evolutionist non-Christian’ scientists.

    A simple google search with ‘Darwin’s Doubt’as the header uncovers so many links to real scietists tearing this nonsense down.

    May I suggest Neil Shubin’s, ‘Your Inner Fish’, or any of Coyne’s books, Stephen Hawkings is articulate, as is Tyson, Dawkins, hell even a non-scientist like Hitchens writes better on scinece than Wells or Meyer. Anything other than the execrible dribble you describe as, ‘the greatest work of science writing’!

    I can only guess you are actually very religious, or ID friendly, and you don’t have the faintest idea what evolution actually is.

  16. 16
    mikeenders says:

    A simple google search with ‘Darwin’s Doubt’as the header uncovers so many links to real scientists tearing this nonsense down.,

    sA book savaged by your fellow, ‘evolutionist non-Christian’ scientists.

    Arguing materialist consensus equals fact lives.

    Perhaps he read the book? DD’s reviews were a revelation in themselves. Notable ones being written less than 24 hours after the book was published with no advanced access.

  17. 17
    AveryM says:

    The guy is clearly trolling, he says that Christopher Hitchens wrote well about science. I can’t imagine someone saying that in earnest.

    I do indeed read this blog because I am in agreement that the scientific community has become closed off and full of systemic problems, and has failed to address the methodological issues that IDers raised. Scientists admit this themselves now. The blog is interesting, don’t mess it up with trolling.

  18. 18
    Pindi says:

    AveryM you are clearly trolling. What does the bible say about lying?

  19. 19
    AveryM says:

    I wouldn’t know, I’ve only read portions of it myself. I find the mythology of the Old Testament a little screwy. I spent a long time reading Buddhist scriptures, but I’m currently just a nameless theist.

    If you can’t understand that it’s possible to judge science writing on its merits without having to root for one team or the other, I really don’t know what to say.

  20. 20
    AnimatedDust says:

    rvb, please list what books by Meyer you have read.

  21. 21
    AnimatedDust says:

    Crickets.

  22. 22
    buffalo says:

    Modern science is so complicated that only elite scientists can understand it. It is scientific gnosticism and then they indoctrinate. America is catching on and they do not like it.

Leave a Reply