11 Replies to “Bill Nye Embarrasses Himself

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    Bill Nye Embarrasses Himself

    Again?!

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    Anti-philosophy is a philosophy.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    News says:

    Well, asauber at 2, anti-philosophy is a philosophy if anti-insurance is insurance. No?

    A point of view that used to characterize uneducated people who might not be very bright is now paraded by people who are supposed to be smart, cool, and scientific.

    Did the city go and put something in the water?

    What I take you to mean is that they have a philosophy whether they know it or not. And that’s just the point.

    Smart people are supposed to realize that they have a philosophy. Whether they can articulate it depends on their education and language skills.

    In reality, most of these people are naturalist atheists, but because they make no distinction between their philosophy and science, if they work in science, they tend to believe that they have no philosophy.

    The mistake is theirs; the consequences are shared. See, for example, the PLOSOne “creator” flap.

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    “What I take you to mean is that they have a philosophy whether they know it or not. And that’s just the point.”

    Yes. That was my meaning.

    And it seems to be the purpose of institutional education today to indoctrinate into a philosophy, but not tell anyone that’s what’s the intention is.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    News says:

    asauber at 4, yes indeed. If they can impose it without defending it, it doesn’t even need to make sense.

  6. 6
    bFast says:

    I appreciate this post, as it recognizes Bill Nye’s unbelievably simplistic view of philosophy. As if philosophy begins and ends with “I think, therefore I am.”

    I recently started reading a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Miracles”. He begins with this simple case: “What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as far as we can, the philosophical question.”

    So there is certainly vast vistas more to philosophy than has met the little mind of Mr. Nye.

    On the flip side, nothing in philosophy ever seems to settle out. Plato’s disagreement with Aristotle, and Aristotle’s disagreement with Plato both persist all these millennia later. Philosophers still can’t figure out that mathematica is a discovery.

    We can establish our current philosophical position, but generalized philosophy will never be settled. It is this endless banter that somehow makes philosophy to be as silly as Mr. Nye presents.

  7. 7
  8. 8

    I would say Bill is right that philosophy is down in the dumps, but that is because of evolution theory influencing philosophy.

    It’s obvious that Bill Nye is thrown deep into the head versus heart struggle, the struggle between fact and opinion. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge the validity of opinion in it’s own right as categorically distinct from fact.

    I just made a little website about that, creationist philosophy.

    http://creationistischreveil.nl/home-english/

  9. 9
    GaryGaulin says:

    Arriving at conclusions that appear to be scientific but in the model and evidence demanding science world they seriously are not is causing Philosophy to go the same route as Astrology. In both cases it’s a feel-good take it on faith thing.

    Although I live in Massachusetts I have been supportive of eliminating all “Naturalism” from science standards and classrooms. The following is an organization I have long been in contact with and as always help out where I can:

    http://www.copeinc.org/

    As it turned out the national science standards slowly ended up changing on their own, which left no symbolic case for Robert Lattimer to win in court but he/we still won anyway.

    The only way to prevent “naturalism” returing to the US public school classrooms is to make sure that all of the philosophizing over it is kept completely out of the science classrooms. Talking about “alternatives” antagonizes those who will counter by rebloating the national standards with Methodological Naturalism all over again:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-599213

    I know that all of this might be a shock to philosophers who believed that philosophy is somehow the foundation of science, but the Discovery Institute network is again a problem for the people it is most supposed to be speaking for.

    Where even Atheists are with us on keeping an even bigger “naturalism” circus out of the public schools there is a “common enemy” to gel against. Once again the DI must ail, but still ID and the show at UD must go on.

    It’s exactly what was needed to help keep the science fun going. Keeping all philosophy related wordage completely out of the US national science standards eliminates footholds even Larry Moran can appreciate being made gone, and he’s up in Canada. It’s like a system for total control of what ID becomes where no matter what you do the (apparently) philosophy eating power of the scientific method at work in this forum ends up producing a commendable Boom Clap beat that goes on and on and on and on and

  10. 10
    Robert Byers says:

    Nye agreed to the ham debate and so i give him thumbs up.
    yet he has never contributed to science except teaching which doesn’t count.
    So why does he know better then anyone about issues of contention.
    The bible sets boundaries for philosophy. after this it can add what it wants.
    Probably mostly they didn’t.
    yet its a bigger point that these cats are saying only the material world exists.
    How do they know? Well thats all they see.!!.
    They never saw evolution do its glory but they know that existed.
    Everybody deals with the invisible.

  11. 11
    jimmontg says:

    Well, sometimes I pray for Nye, Dawkins and especially Stephen Hawking. I couldn’t believe his atheist aspersions in The Grand Design. I hope he finds Christ before he dies. Just my two cents. I liked his A Brief History Of Time.
    Eternity is a long time to be left alone.

Leave a Reply