If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Bill Nye, the "please stop being science denying idiot" guy   (nytimes.com) divider line 494
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25745 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



494 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 08:50:27 AM
Paging The Bad Astronomer.
 
2013-06-18 08:51:55 AM

0Icky0: olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.

A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.


Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science.  Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much.  Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years.  In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:09 AM
Dr. Laura, now, that's a P.H.D. that really means something.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:20 AM
Love the Bill-o Faux Tag: "Bill Nye: Believes in man made global warming."

I suppose he also "believes" in atoms, molecules, and other sciencey stuff that's up for debate at the Fox.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:42 AM

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


Because you need a PhD to be right? Someone without a PhD isn't qualified to talk about evolution? Or geology? Or astronomy? And what if the PhD is in psychology, does that qualify someone to talk about astronomy? Or does he need 30 different PhDs so we know to listen to him? And what about high school teachers? Should we disregard everything they have to say if they aren't PhDs? Does light stop moving at 299792458 m/s if the person making the statement doesn't have a PhD in physics?

If what someone says turns out to be right most of the time, why does it matter that (s)he hasn't got a signed scrap of paper?
 
2013-06-18 08:53:06 AM

markfara: Sounds like this guy is up to his neck in college-age 'tang. . . .


I agree. Dude wears a goofy bow tie, and probably gets more coeds than an entire fraternity.

There are some mysteries that truly are beyond the reach of science.

/warming deniers are out in full force today
 
2013-06-18 08:53:32 AM
My headline was better.

That said, I respect Mr. Nye as a man of science. His erudition in multiple fields renders him close to being a modern polymath. However, I cannot cite him as an example of critical thinking and his statement that individuals should search for the truth for themselves is fallacious. A scientist and a scholar does not flat deny a theory without evidence which directly contradicts it, as so doing may preclude multiple logical possibilities from being examined academically. On examining Mr. Nye's rhetoric, it is incomplete, as is only logical; no one human being can know with absolute certainty what the truth is apropos the origin of reality as we know it, insofar as we (human beings in this time period) were not present to study it. This is a field where the scientific evidence merges with past and future estimations founded on present data, which may have been dissimilar at some other time period, and which therefore may render data at best uncertain and at worst unreliable. Present data which is projected onto past and future estimations is not tangible empirical evidence but rather scientific philosophy. It may be correct, though it is not possible to know without a time machine, if that could be done without violating relativity. Abiogenisis, orogenesis, and macroevolution may have occurred in an infinite universe which was and is somehow not subject to entropic regression. It may have been possible for a singularity to generate forces of physics which forces of physics the same singularity needed to function, though the Big Bang theory is currently controversial. It is also possible that an entity beyond all of reality--all physical and abstract concepts--generated the universe as we know it. Such an entity would match the description of the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic God. If the universe is finite and the being which generated it is beyond the same physical laws, then the being is infinite; if the being which generated the universe is beyond all physical and abstract entities within this universe, then that being is beyond physical laws, relative motion, and the universe itself. Creationism may have occurred, with intelligent design, and intense hydrological processes which were responsible for the confusing rock strata which multiple theories currently exist for. A scholar does not take either of these theories for granted, but rather examines the evidence and develops a perspective based as much as possible on empirical, historical, archeological, mathematical, logical, and literary evidence. This perspective, as with all perspectives, is subject to change if further evidence arises to challenge elements of the perspective.
 
2013-06-18 08:53:53 AM

steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Hmmm... I wonder what happened to all that CO2 that was in the atmosphere all those many millions of years ago. Maybe it was fixed into organic molecules in plants, some of which eventually died and fossilized, carrying their carbon into the ground with them, to be buried for all time never reintroduced to the atmosphere unless some species was dumb enough to dig it up and burn it.

And humans definitely don't dig up and burn fossilized carbon, therefore modern atmospheric CO2 increases are not man-made. Right?
 
2013-06-18 08:54:49 AM
"we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.
 
2013-06-18 08:55:12 AM

Alonjar: 0Icky0: olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.

A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.

Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science.  Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much.  Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years.  In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.


FTA:

'On the night the tornado hit Moore, Mr. Nye to Mr. Morgan that "you can't say from any one storm that 'this is a result of, let's say, climate change.' " But he noted that "if there's more heat driving the storm, then there's going to be more tornadoes," and added that the question "is worth investigating."'
 
2013-06-18 08:55:38 AM

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


"why" is continual punting down the road. It's a useless question. "How" is the only relevant thing to ask, as "why" will always be met with more "why" each time. Neither Science nor Religion nor Philosophy can ever answer the infinity of "why"
 
2013-06-18 08:55:42 AM
o.onionstatic.com
 
2013-06-18 08:56:03 AM

mamoru: If science answers "how?" questions, then by definition, that includes "how come?" questions. Which is the same as "why?". Therefor science does indeed answer why. :p


lol sort of... the laws of physics say there is no such thing as why.  Everything is just an equal and opposite reaction of what came before it, remember.  I enjoy the variety of responses im getting to that statement though :)
 
2013-06-18 08:56:24 AM

namegoeshere: I have a secret nerd crush on Bill Nye.


Oops
 
2013-06-18 08:56:28 AM
Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'll wait until Natalie Portman writes a paper.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:01 AM

mbillips: utah dude: science is just another religion.

0/10


i think you man (10-10)/10, bro.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:30 AM

Skywolf the Scribbler: My headline was better.

That said, I respect Mr. Nye as a man of science. His erudition in multiple fields renders him close to being a modern polymath. However, I cannot cite him as an example of critical thinking and his statement that individuals should search for the truth for themselves is fallacious. A scientist and a scholar does not flat deny a theory without evidence which directly contradicts it, as so doing may preclude multiple logical possibilities from being examined academically. On examining Mr. Nye's rhetoric, it is incomplete, as is only logical; no one human being can know with absolute certainty what the truth is apropos the origin of reality as we know it, insofar as we (human beings in this time period) were not present to study it. This is a field where the scientific evidence merges with past and future estimations founded on present data, which may have been dissimilar at some other time period, and which therefore may render data at best uncertain and at worst unreliable. Present data which is projected onto past and future estimations is not tangible empirical evidence but rather scientific philosophy. It may be correct, though it is not possible to know without a time machine, if that could be done without violating relativity. Abiogenisis, orogenesis, and macroevolution may have occurred in an infinite universe which was and is somehow not subject to entropic regression. It may have been possible for a singularity to generate forces of physics which forces of physics the same singularity needed to function, though the Big Bang theory is currently controversial. It is also possible that an entity beyond all of reality--all physical and abstract concepts--generated the universe as we know it. Such an entity would match the description of the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic God. If the universe is finite and the being which generated it is beyond the same physical laws, then the being is infinite; if the being which generated the universe i ...


Not sure if that headline would've fit.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:37 AM

utah dude: [imageshack.us image 600x453]


I wouldn't say that is true all the time.   For example, Homeopathy adherents even admit that their "medicines" have exactly zero molecules of any sort of substance that could help someone.  That is very specific quackery.
 
2013-06-18 08:58:01 AM

Sybarite: vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.


About damn time someone tried that, instead of hysterical screaming and comparisons to the Holocaust and profiteering on global warming and hypocritical lifestyle choices and actively politicizing the debate for partisan purposes.
 
2013-06-18 08:58:41 AM
www.pri.org

He knows more than you do.

That's because he has a master's degree ..... in science!
 
2013-06-18 08:58:44 AM
If you want to create a world that makes decisions based on science then reason must be at the forefront of the political/legislative process. Simply allowing members of congress and the supreme court to make decisions based largely on their own discretion has to end. When we allow semantics and logical fallacies to be sold to the public as a truth it promotes ignorance, and an idea that any logic can be true if it's framed in an aesthetically pleasing format.
 
2013-06-18 08:59:34 AM

Carn: Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.

In the scientific process, plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't actually qualify as skepticism.  Just FYI.


Also that fact that science at all times has things that it asserts are true that are in fact not true but we will only find this out later doesn't mean you can assume "area of science I don't like the conclusions of" is the part that is wrong. Science is right about most things (although the detail will always be refined), so the chances that the part that you dislike is the bit that happens to be wrong is a fairly long shot.
 
2013-06-18 09:00:29 AM

utah dude: science is just another religion.


Just like atheism, right?
 
2013-06-18 09:00:59 AM

mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.


I completely agree. Bill is a nice guy, but lacks a lot of the charisma that other educators in the field have. I'm a member of the National Space Society and his interactions have been pretty yawn-inducing for the most part. Probably his most interesting activities has been during his eco war with Ed Begley, which was really entertaining for a while.
 
2013-06-18 09:01:35 AM

joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.


In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies.  Guess what they say about climate change?

www.jamespowell.org
But hey, don't believe me.  Use this guy's handy page to examine recent publications for yourself.

At some point, you need to move off of endless "what ifs", and move on to policy recommendations.  At what level of certainty would it be worth considering a new energy policy?  75% confidence?  90% confidence?

We make policy decisions on those kinds of margins all the time.  When we adjust a tax rate or take military action or move a budget, we're a lot less than 90% certain of the economic and national security outcomes.  But we look at the problem, realize that doing nothing has its own price, and say "I'm 90% certain this is the way to go.  Let's take action and monitor as we go."

And yet, the level of scientific certainty is much higher than 90%.  The is backed by meta-analysis of the published evidence, by surveys of publishing professionals, by the public positions of worldwide scientific organizations, etc.  The only reason we don't do more is because there is a lot of lobbying power holding us to the status quo.  It's literally the same pay-for-opinion whores that told us that the link between cigarette smoke and cancer was nothing to worry about.
 
2013-06-18 09:02:15 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: Not sure if that headline would've fit.


Hahahaha good point then

"Bill Nye thinks he's Mr. Rogers and is telling you how to raise your kids"
 
2013-06-18 09:02:32 AM

mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]



I preferred Mr Wizard

boingboing.net
 
2013-06-18 09:02:52 AM

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


I don't see how comparing him to Fox News is going to create a productive discussion on Fark.

That said, no he doesn't have a PhD.  No one says he does.  His highest level of education is a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell.  He still knows a thing or two about science but, most importantly, he's really good at explaining scientific ideas in layman's language.
 
2013-06-18 09:03:31 AM

Graffito: utah dude: science is just another religion.

Just like atheism, right?


i thought they were the same thing?
 
2013-06-18 09:03:51 AM

Dadbart: "we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.


What book of Genesis are you reading? Genesis I and Genesis II have conflicting timelines (animals before man in one, vice versa in the other). You have to really twist the description of creation to square it with the science. There's no "And behold, the Lord did cause the tiny to grow great, and the realms of the heavens did hurtle one from the other, and the earth did cool and shrink away from the firmament." Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario (the waters above divided from the waters below, when in fact the earth coalesced before there was any liquid water).

Twisting scripture, of course, is what religious people do, because the obvious conclusion, "Hey, they made this shiat up based on the story-telling methods of mythology," conflicts with their belief system.
 
2013-06-18 09:04:10 AM

Alonjar: Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science. Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much. Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years. In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.


Basically what I said on a more local scale
 
2013-06-18 09:04:11 AM

utah dude: science is just another religion.


I totally agree, except the exact opposite of that.

Faith requires belief absent, or even in the face of, evidence.

Science is a method of looking at the world and making determinations based on evidence.
 
2013-06-18 09:04:26 AM

markfara: Sounds like this guy is up to his neck bow tire in college-age 'tang. . . .



FTFM
 
2013-06-18 09:04:49 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: "why" is continual punting down the road. It's a useless question. "How" is the only relevant thing to ask, as "why" will always be met with more "why" each time


How do you know that "why" has no answer?  Isn't it possible that perhaps there is an answer to "why," but we just haven't discovered it yet?
 
2013-06-18 09:05:04 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'll wait until Natalie Portman writes a paper.


Ah fark....

If you are discussing reasonable education fees and student loan interest rates it's all, "Education is useless. You should just be bootstrappy instead! You don't need a fancy degree to make something of yourself. Kids these days need a degree in wiping their asses it seems!'

But once we start talking about Climate change it's all, 'Bill Nye doesn't have enough degrees to comment.'

When he gets backed up by a scientist with degrees then it's, 'Ivory tower academics don't understand the real word!'
 
2013-06-18 09:05:21 AM
I still want you Bill!

I'm outside your house right now!

www.john-robert-brown.com
 
2013-06-18 09:05:26 AM

chimp_ninja: joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.

In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies.  Guess what they say about climate change?


Of those 13,950 articles how many said that man is the primary cause of global warming?
 
2013-06-18 09:05:36 AM

The Fifth Dentist: markfara: Sounds like this guy is up to his neck bow tie in college-age 'tang. . . .


FTFM

X 2 dammit
 
2013-06-18 09:05:42 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'll wait until Natalie Portman writes a paper.



I'll take what Bill Nye says more seriously then anything you have ever said, or are ever to likely say.

Bill Nye is just a better human being then you.

He's also waaaaaay more Academically credible then you.
 
2013-06-18 09:06:00 AM

DerAppie: Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

Because you need a PhD to be right? Someone without a PhD isn't qualified to talk about evolution? Or geology? Or astronomy? And what if the PhD is in psychology, does that qualify someone to talk about astronomy? Or does he need 30 different PhDs so we know to listen to him? And what about high school teachers? Should we disregard everything they have to say if they aren't PhDs? Does light stop moving at 299792458 m/s if the person making the statement doesn't have a PhD in physics?

If what someone says turns out to be right most of the time, why does it matter that (s)he hasn't got a signed scrap of paper?


When you factor in the cost benefit analysis of becoming an aerospace engineer and famous tv personality vs a physics phd/researcher, it kind of makes you wonder which one is actually more intelligent.

/Queue but they dont do it for moneys!
//Which would be better for humanity:  Becoming a research phd, or becoming an MBA and hiring 5 researchers?
//Oh no i'm turning a science thread into a philosophy one!  Blasphemy!
 
2013-06-18 09:06:01 AM

mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario


Que?
 
2013-06-18 09:06:01 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?


So, if an overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed evidence was published in the world's leading scientific journal, making the same point, you'd believe it right?

Because you're a "skeptic", right?  Not a troll, certainly.  And skeptics are persuaded by evidence.  So it would be compelling to see a small mountain of papers presenting evidence that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities?  Right?
 
2013-06-18 09:06:13 AM

utah dude: Graffito: utah dude: science is just another religion.

Just like atheism, right?

i thought they were the same thing?


Can you please explain how proving hypotheses with experiments makes it a religion?
 
2013-06-18 09:06:56 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: chimp_ninja: joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.

In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies.  Guess what they say about climate change?

Of those 13,950 articles how many said that man is the primary cause of global warming?


97% or so.
 
2013-06-18 09:07:04 AM

steamingpile: Mad Scientist: Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

Aerospace engineer, actually.

Yes, so he's not a doctor.......this guy is a big phoney!!!!


You're confusing him with this guy:

1.bp.blogspot.com

This guy is The Doctor, not a doctor.
 
2013-06-18 09:07:23 AM

chimp_ninja: joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.

In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies.  Guess what they say about climate change?

[www.jamespowell.org image 800x544]
But hey, don't believe me.  Use this guy's handy page to examine recent publications for yourself.

At some point, you need to move off of endless "what ifs", and move on to policy recommendations.  At what level of certainty would it be worth considering a new energy policy?  75% confidence?  90% confidence?

We make policy decisions on those kinds of margins all the time.  When we adjust a tax rate or take military action or move a budget, we're a lot less than 90% certain of the economic and national security outcomes.  But we look at the problem, realize that doing nothing has its own price, and say "I'm 90% certain this is the way to go.  Let's take action and monitor as we go."

And yet, the level of scientific certainty is much higher than 90%.  The is backed by meta-analysis of the published evidence, by surveys of publishing professionals, by the public positions of worldwide scientific organizations, etc.  The only reason we don't do more is because there is a lot of lobbying power holding us to the status quo.  It's literally the same pay-for-opinion whores that told us that the link between cigarette smoke and cancer was nothing to worry about.


Yea, but my gut believes the little red sliver.  Besides, there was that one time when the minority were right and everybody else was wrong so I've got that going for me.
Most of all - AL GORE!!!
 
2013-06-18 09:07:52 AM

Persnickety: Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

He has a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell and worked for Boeing as an engineer so I think we can safely say he knows more about science than the vast majority of Americans.


Keep in mind that an Engineer is not the same as a Scientist.  There is some overlap. You can see it in the three types of engineering degrees.  At the Bachelor's level, you can get a Bachelor of Engineering, A Bachelor of Science in Engineering, and a Bachelor of Engineering Science.  As you proceed on this continuum, you get more theory and less practice.  And some scientists (chemists, physicists, etc.) focus far more on practice than on theory.

In general a Scientist is a seeker of truth.  An  Engineer wants an answer that works, on time, and within budget.

/Yes, I respect Bill Nye.  He is an excellent educator.
 
2013-06-18 09:08:26 AM

Jorn the Younger: mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]


I preferred Mr Wizard

[boingboing.net image 410x287]


Mr Wizard was the shiat.  Bill Nye always seemed like a flashy but not as good substitute, and lets not even discuss Beakman what a hack.

Bill Nye has done much better since he had the TV show IMO.
 
2013-06-18 09:08:59 AM

dittybopper: What_do_you_want_now: Because facts are immutable

Actually, they aren't immutable.  Our understanding of everything evolves and gets refined as we learn more.  Something that was considered a 'fact' 100 years ago may not be considered one today, or there may be some caveats, or it may be so at the macro level but not at smaller scales or vice-versa.

As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication.  This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known.  Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.


Thank you for your wise advice, but allow me to clarify my statement.

A fact is immutable regardless of how much we know about it, while our understanding of the fact may grow and change to accept it for what it really is.

I'm not stating this to stagnate our scientific progress because we have all the facts, but rather we should continue to develop ourselves so that we can understand the facts more fully.

Hope this clarifies.
 
2013-06-18 09:09:31 AM
Why can't science develop a race-neutral test of cognitive abilities?
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report