 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't care less what Neil DeGrasse Tyson's list of favorite sci-fi films is. Am I the only one who finds he and the show he hosts smug, tiresome and close-minded? He's like an anti-scientist to me. Scientists are supposed to be interested in every theory and possibility. All the maybes and what ifs. Excited by them, even. He insists everything is black and white. As if the word, "might" is absent from his vocabulary. He strikes me as the scientific equivalent of a right-wing fundamentalist. There's really no difference. It's their way, PERIOD! There is no place for discussion of any other theory or idea. Everything that science, isn't! Sagan was as smug, by I don't recall him being as close-minded. His appeal is, utterly, lost on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no place for discussion of any other theory or idea.
Can you give examples of these other theories and ideas?
No. Mostly, because examples of other theories and ideas would be subject-based, not generally applicable to things. Also, I'm not interested in having a debate about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I was just stating my opinion of him. I do want to remind people that it was scientists who insisted the earth was flat, andthat proteins, not DNA were the key to heredity (even when they knew about DNA), and that the liver, not the heart, circulated blood through the body, and the earth was the center of the universe, and on and on and on. I think some use of the word, "might" is a healthy philosophy for scientists, and I believe most scientists would agree. Of course DeGrasse Tyson doesn't have any time for philosophy, or anything else, which is precisely my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll just chime in here and state my opinion that JOHN CARTER is a great film (to me and many of my friends around the net) with superb efx and a brilliant score.....I would have supported any sequels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2014 - 8:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
There is no place for discussion of any other theory or idea.
Can you give examples of these other theories and ideas?
No. Mostly, because examples of other theories and ideas would be subject-based, not generally applicable to things. Also, I'm not interested in having a debate about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I was just stating my opinion of him. I do want to remind people that it was scientists who insisted the earth was flat, andthat proteins, not DNA were the key to heredity (even when they knew about DNA), and that the liver, not the heart, circulated blood through the body, and the earth was the center of the universe, and on and on and on. I think some use of the word, "might" is a healthy philosophy for scientists, and I believe most scientists would agree. Of course DeGrasse Tyson doesn't have any time for philosophy, or anything else, which is precisely my point.
I don't know where you got any of that info from nor do I know if any of that is even correct. But you are clearly stating ancient science if not region based science which is not science at all.
Back then people did their own theories and tests based on limited, well science, and often without others who could back up their tests, theories or claims.
Today scientists around the world can share ideas, theories and do tests. When hundreds of scientists take the same information and come to the same independent conclusions its called a scientific fact. Just because a fringe group says otherwise doesn't leave the door open for interpretation.
As far as DeGrasse, he has openly stated science should be challenged, and it is the very heart of a scientist to prove another scientist's theory in error. But it has to be provable and backed up. It's neither a simple opinion or unproven theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2014 - 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
When hundreds of scientists take the same information and come to the same independent conclusions its called a scientific fact.
But it has to be provable and backed up. It's neither a simple opinion or unproven theory.
Well, not really. Science is not about proof, it is about eliminating alternatives and developing a working model that best fits our empirical observations. A theory is generally based on a preponderance of evidence -- not a statement of proof -- and will be modified or discarded as and when better working models are found or new evidence is discovered (and confirmed) that contradicts or expands on our previous understanding. There are often competing theories, more-or-less equally plausible, attempting to explain something, and often a debate ends (for a time, at least) not because one side disproves the other, but because one school of thought gets tired of arguing about it (or gets old and dies) and the other is free to move on unopposed. And, yes, scientists, just like everyone else, get caught up in their ideas and opinions and sometimes an idea that turns out to be on the right track gets shouted down or discarded in favor of some other theory that turns out to be quite wrong, but ultimately the preponderance of evidence will vindicate the original idea. Science is humble and self-correcting, if it's being practiced correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
