|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Jan 18, 2016 2:27:21 GMT
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Nye are good examples. What do you guys think of science celebrities? In another thread someone mentioned they weren't so keen on Bill Nye and I wanted to start a different topic discussing these guys. The media has gotten into a practice of pitting these, science guys, against the big ticket creationists(US Republicans follow these guys). I don't like that. It is a little like arguing with the SotA forum, the very second you start to argue and pit your scientific observations against that type of mentality, you've already lost and I think it does them and science a disservice. At the same time however media exposure has allowed some of these guys the very opportunity for celebrity, and any reason at all to encourage people to go out and educate themselves and their children on these issues is a very good thing. There are a few things I could disagree with these guys on, but there isn't much. I respect the three I've listed here quite a bit for all of the good things they have done in order to bring things into the general awareness of people. Not to mention all of the cool and great things they have done on their normal day jobs on top of that
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jan 18, 2016 11:51:18 GMT
I mentioned I didn't like Bill Nye in that other thread, but didn't explain why.
His education is in mechanical engineering. He is an actor, not a scientist. I've personally heard/seen/read things from him that were not accurate. Even though some of his messages I agree with, I simply don't respect him just because I agree with some of his more liberal mindset.
Richard Dawkins. If he didn't weave in his personal dogma with virtually everything he says, he might be ok. But an humanist/atheist who pushes that agenda is just as offensive as an extremist religious zealot. True science entails open-ended inquiry, not stating hard and fast claims. And he does this often.
I don't really know the work of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
The way it often appears, though, is any scientist who makes it into the media regularly tends to make me mistrustful (personally). I could say the same about Stephen Hawking. Just because he proved he could do science as a severely disabled person seems to make people listen more. <shrugs> I've met and know many top scientists (theoretical physicists) that are brilliant beyond anything I could comprehend. But they typically don't make the news unless it's the discovery of the Higgs-Boson.
I've spent many hours with some of these scientists, and the way they look at the world and think about things has always been intriguing to me. They're an odd lot. But a fascinating, funny and entertaining one. They tend to only talk when something is important enough to talk about.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Jan 18, 2016 12:51:32 GMT
A lot of people say that about Dawkins. That is exactly what I thought about him at first too. After I moved out of the States though I started to get better educated about the rest of the world, the more I learn of it and the things Dawkins disagrees with the more I find that his combative stance against extremist positions is agreeable to me. Why should one side have the right to defend itself with all the vitriol and not the other? You can't stone someone to death for being raped and expect to be treated as a gentleman by everybody in the world... But you also make good points! I am sure you know much more about that sphere and individual personalities than I do, which is good for me in a way as I can ignore some of the things like that I may not fully agree with from a good distance
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jan 18, 2016 20:32:04 GMT
I would say that the majority of scientists (especially ones I know personally) are agnostic. A few are atheist, which has always mystified me, Dawkins is a rabid atheist. A few are religious and actually attend ch-ur-ch (I spell it that way due to your word filter lol), which has always mystified me.
Studying field theory, astronomy the universe, is not too much unlike studying anatomy and physiology of the human body (as I've done quite a bit). The more you study how it functions, the more mysterious it appears. And in that mystery, it seems there is some sort of grand intelligence as the only real explanation. It does not seem that anything has happened by chance. But, obviously there are scientists who would disagree with me.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jan 18, 2016 20:35:22 GMT
Carl Sagan is/was a hugely well known astronomer, and again, an atheist zealot, which made me ignore most of his work.
Even though he was not a scientist, you gotta love Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Most scientists loved his work. In fact, a lot of them carry towels on the day he died, in memory of him.
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Jan 19, 2016 0:32:48 GMT
Neil deGrasse Tyson is my homeboy. That guy is fantastic.
Bill Nye is awesome, too. Not a huge fan of Dawkins or Sagan for similar reasons Cali mentioned, but I don't harbor ill will towards them or anything. I don't speak out against them, I just feel like I'm being proselytized when listening to them.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Jan 19, 2016 1:19:39 GMT
I would say that the majority of scientists (especially ones I know personally) are agnostic. A few are atheist, which has always mystified me, Dawkins is a rabid atheist. A few are religious and actually attend ch-ur-ch (I spell it that way due to your word filter lol), which has always mystified me. Studying field theory, astronomy the universe, is not too much unlike studying anatomy and physiology of the human body (as I've done quite a bit). The more you study how it functions, the more mysterious it appears. And in that mystery, it seems there is some sort of grand intelligence as the only real explanation. It does not seem that anything has happened by chance. But, obviously there are scientists who would disagree with me. This gave me a boner. I'm a big subscriber to intelligent design. I find the continued assault on religious/spiritual thought quite disturbing. Im not smart enough to be athiest or not superstitious. I am often perplexed by people who know with all certainty the composition of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Jan 19, 2016 1:26:31 GMT
Nobody knows with all certainty the composition of the universe They(scientists) always make that clear when they debate. I mean shit, they literally don't know where ~73% of the known universe is. They can't even see it, if anyone of them claimed to know everything they'd be a total hack.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jan 19, 2016 10:11:37 GMT
Ya, I don't harbor ill will towards the atheist (or religious) zealots. It's just difficult for me to take them seriously because of their zealous behavior.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Jan 22, 2016 19:16:22 GMT
No love for Mr. Wizard here I see.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Jan 22, 2016 21:42:04 GMT
No love for Mr. Wizard here I see. Who's that?
|
|