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  
•       •       •

25755 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 05:23:22 PM  

Farking Canuck: So what's the bet on when the green thread-shiatter will show up??

I've got $5 on the 6pm-7pm EDT slot. Thread should have died down by then ... perfect for his walls of green lies.


Eh, I've learned not to take sucker bets. Let's go for something more specific.

I'll bet you that he again tries to cite specific cherry-picked anomalies as sweeping refutations of climatology, ignoring both the larger context and that Bayesian inference means that you need large data sets and comprehensive modeling to refute a theory built on extensive statistical models like those studied by climatologists.
 
2013-06-18 05:26:26 PM  

mbillips: Oh, btw, catastrophic AGW denial is the latest fallback position for global warming deniers (I won't call them skeptics, because skepticism requires a mind open to new information).

Step 1 was: There's no such thing as global warming.
Step 2: Global warming is real, but not human-caused.
Step 3: Global warming is real, and includes human causes, but it won't hurt us. We'll be growing strawberries in Alaska!

Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water: Global warming is real, and human-caused, and catastrophic, but it's too late now.


This! I've been watching the goal-posts being moved for a while now. Unfortunately, I too believe it's too late, and as vast areas become hotter, there will be even more air-conditioning so people can stay comfortably in their homes and it will just get worse and worse. If you think the oil wars have been bad for geopolitical stability, wait for the water wars.
 
2013-06-18 05:55:22 PM  

silvervial: I too believe it's too late


"Too Late" for what? To completely mitigate the impact of AGW enough that we can avoid major costs and keep our lifestyle at the status quo? Yeah you're probably right.

In fact, I would agree that we are probably "too late" to avoid major impacts.

But that does not mean that we take the denier advice and "do nothing". We have to do what we can to blunt the coming impact ... both in magnitude and duration.
 
2013-06-18 06:17:01 PM  

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


Tragically, he wasn't even doing that. The deniers would not have been in the audience.
 
2013-06-18 06:34:01 PM  

Holy Banana: I wonder what would happen if Bill turned out to be this reality's incarnation of the Doctor...

*ponder!*


Puhlease.... the Doctor wouldn't care about how we're "destroying the planet." He's more concerned on the Daleks than what we do to the planet.... matter of fact, I have a quote:

The Doctor: [as he and Rose view the Earth from Platform 1] You lot, you spend all your time thinking about dying, like you're gonna get killed by eggs, or beef, or global warming, or asteroids. But you never take time to imagine the impossible. Like maybe you survive. This is the year 5.5/apple/26, five billion years in your future, and this is the day... Hold on...

[He checks his watch, and through the window the sun suddenly flares]

The Doctor: This is the day the sun expands. Welcome to the end of the world.
 
2013-06-18 07:09:56 PM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


At least science isn't teaching people that they can live forever if they'll just believe that virgins have babies.

Skywolf the Scribbler: Forces of physics which are not understood, such as the Bermuda Triangle, remain hypothetical.


I'm not sure what you are saying, so I don't know if I'm agreeing with you or pointing out that it's complete nonsense.  But there isn't anything special about the Bermuda Triangle except for more "ghost stories" than average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle

It's just folklore with no actual "weird stuff we don't understand happens there all the time" to it.
 
2013-06-18 07:11:39 PM  

Farking Canuck: So what's the bet on when the green thread-shiatter will show up??

I've got $5 on the 6pm-7pm EDT slot. Thread should have died down by then ... perfect for his walls of green lies.


Nah, too early in the day.  It'll be in 4 to 6 hours.
 
2013-06-18 07:25:26 PM  

Zafler: Farking Canuck: So what's the bet on when the green thread-shiatter will show up??

I've got $5 on the 6pm-7pm EDT slot. Thread should have died down by then ... perfect for his walls of green lies.

Nah, too early in the day.  It'll be in 4 to 6 hours.


Sounds like you have a time slot picked out ... place your bet. My bet busted half an hour ago :(
 
2013-06-18 07:54:51 PM  

Farking Canuck: Sounds like you have a time slot picked out ... place your bet. My bet busted half an hour ago :(


Misread yours when I posted, thought it said PDT for some reason.  That's just the normal time frame for him to pop into these threads, he'll post in Politics threads before then, however.
 
2013-06-18 08:12:18 PM  
My only problem with science is scientists are too often condescending, elitist, group think, conventional jackasses who use their credentials and laurels to bully fringe ideas that challenge convention.  Look back through history and you will see the most revered pioneers in science were the ones who were able to break through that convention, but in their wake are dozens who were ridiculed and scoffed.

Take for example the theory of continental drift and Pangaea.
 
2013-06-18 08:12:19 PM  

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?


So the guy that stuck a camera up my butt last week is a scientist? Good to know.
 
2013-06-18 08:57:51 PM  

2wolves: The planet needs another ten thousand Bill Nyes. Maybe more.


The planet needs approximately 6 billion or so Bill Nyes. The fact that we have just an infinitesimal fraction of that is the problem.
 
2013-06-18 09:00:00 PM  

silvervial: mbillips: Oh, btw, catastrophic AGW denial is the latest fallback position for global warming deniers (I won't call them skeptics, because skepticism requires a mind open to new information).

Step 1 was: There's no such thing as global warming.
Step 2: Global warming is real, but not human-caused.
Step 3: Global warming is real, and includes human causes, but it won't hurt us. We'll be growing strawberries in Alaska!

Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water: Global warming is real, and human-caused, and catastrophic, but it's too late now.

This! I've been watching the goal-posts being moved for a while now. Unfortunately, I too believe it's too late, and as vast areas become hotter, there will be even more air-conditioning so people can stay comfortably in their homes and it will just get worse and worse. If you think the oil wars have been bad for geopolitical stability, wait for the water wars.


It's too late, as I've said repeatedly. We're already seeing the start of the resulting changes. Scientists have already indicated that it's too late - that we're no longer talking about prevention, but damage control, and even that is being fought tooth and nail by the rich.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:42 PM  

Zafler: Farking Canuck: So what's the bet on when the green thread-shiatter will show up??

I've got $5 on the 6pm-7pm EDT slot. Thread should have died down by then ... perfect for his walls of green lies.

Nah, too early in the day.  It'll be in 4 to 6 hours.


Yeah.  It's important when laying down green manure that you make sure everything's completely quiet.  Makes replying to one's self more satisfying.
 
2013-06-18 09:43:42 PM  

mainstreet62: ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

Math IS science, dude.


It's really not.
 
2013-06-18 09:46:03 PM  

DON.MAC: There is an odd corner of science that he tends to avoid that I wished had more coverage. If you start with the hypothesis that the world is flat, you can run experiments to successfully navigate based on a flat world and it works.  You can also navigate all the way around the world using the same assumptions and it still works.


Yeah.... you're gonna have to prove that one.
 
2013-06-18 09:46:17 PM  

Frederick: My only problem with science is scientists are too often condescending, elitist, group think, conventional jackasses who use their credentials and laurels to bully fringe ideas that challenge convention.  Look back through history and you will see the most revered pioneers in science were the ones who were able to break through that convention, but in their wake are dozens who were ridiculed and scoffed.

Take for example the theory of continental drift and Pangaea.


Right ... that's why you should always get your science from your politician. And we all know there is never any bias from blogs and corporate think-tanks so they're safe too!!

Fark those damn scientists and their evidence. They weren't perfect every time in the past, and even though they eventually corrected themselves, well fark them! We get our science from our guts now!! No more of those elitists and their devilish book lernin'!!
 
2013-06-18 10:23:51 PM  

frepnog: i like the guy earlier that basically said "i don't like Bill Nye because Jesus" and gave a long winded explanation about how Bill should give Jesus a chance.

Because that right there is science - giving Jesus a chance.




This guy?
I could actually explain all of that jazz in far more explicit detail, but in the all in all, I think that if a zoophile wants to romantically and erotically love an animal on the animal's level, then it is necessary to interact with the animal in a manner that it can understand. This isn't entirely a euphemism. Outside of erotic contact, it means nuzzling and licking a dog in return when he or she greets you on arriving home. Sitting down on the floor to pet him or her, not just in a chair. Cuddling in a non-sexual way. The like. Through gentleness, kindness, affection, and patience in all matters, building a bond of affection and trust between the human and the animal, so that he or she knows that you would never hurt him or her and that you are gentle, loving, and can be trusted. If a zoophile is not simply interested in Platonic love, but in romantic love as well, then yes, this concept transcends to the bedroom.

I think this is important because dogs have an instinct for pack hierarchy, descended from wolves. While this could be wrong, it seems that many dogs perceive their human owners as the 'alpha', or 'leader of the pack'. As such, while a dog may be willing to lie there without resisting out of respect for the 'pack leader', it is also possible to reach an informed opinion as to whether she was in the mood, again by emulating the mating behavior. At the very least, if gentleness and patience is maintained 'in the moment', as it were, she knows that she can feel secure, without worry of harm or mistreatment. And I think that the affection and trust which many pet owners recognize in their pets is a good way to tell if the love--Platonic, romantic, and simple friendship like a 'normal' person feels for pets--is reciprocal.
 
2013-06-18 10:37:05 PM  

oldfarthenry: [i3.ytimg.com image 480x360]
PROFESSOR JULIUS SUMNER MILLER (The Hilarious House of Frightenstein)

/was into science BEFORE there was science!


Why is it so?
 
2013-06-18 10:37:52 PM  

ADHD Librarian: oldfarthenry: [i3.ytimg.com image 480x360]
PROFESSOR JULIUS SUMNER MILLER (The Hilarious House of Frightenstein)

/was into science BEFORE there was science!

Why is it so?


Heh heh heh
 
2013-06-18 11:12:55 PM  

GilRuiz1: What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"? Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world? If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.


Because any line of questioning involving why must either be infinite (imagine the child continually asking "why?" questions to every answer you give) or ultimately end with some equivalent to "because it just is, so stop asking", which is a rather unsatisfactory answer.
 
2013-06-18 11:15:12 PM  

mamoru: GilRuiz1: What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"? Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world? If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.

Because any line of questioning involving why must either be infinite (imagine the child continually asking "why?" questions to every answer you give) or ultimately end with some equivalent to "because it just is, so stop asking", which is a rather unsatisfactory answer.


Why is that?
 
2013-06-18 11:16:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nutsac_Jim: 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."

Too bad we have a low in tornadoes this year.    Oh, I see.. maybe it is more tornadoes  because of global warmininzm but we
just banked up all that energy this year so we can have a powerful one that is noted simply because it hit a populated area.

Maybe they can stop making houses out of sticks in tornado alley.

So you're saying it's not worth investigating, because people build their houses out of wood?



Ah, but can you not also build houses out of stone?
 
2013-06-18 11:19:22 PM  

Carn: ph0rk: mainstreet62: ph0rk: You still haven't proven anything about magnetism.

WTF, yes I have. I've proven that a magnet will stick to a surface made with iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.


No, you haven't. You've provided more data points supporting the claim, but you haven't proven anything about the mechanisms involved.


mainstreet62: ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

Math IS science, dude.

No, it isn't.

biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, physics is math, and math is boring.

img.fark.net

I've said it before: there is an xkcd for any Fark thread.
 
2013-06-18 11:28:59 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

So name one of them.

You want me to name a paper that doesn't exist? You really are crazy.

WARMING TO USERS: user cameroncrazy1984 modifies others' arguments to ones he can win against. Always check his followups for misrepresentations.


WARNING TO USERS: user THE GREAT NAME is a troll.  He is not nearly as ignorant and stupid as he appears to be.  It is a ruse to get you to waste your time.    Also, he misspells the word "warning" on occasion.
 
2013-06-18 11:38:12 PM  

Farking Canuck: Frederick: My only problem with science is scientists are too often condescending, elitist, group think, conventional jackasses who use their credentials and laurels to bully fringe ideas that challenge convention.  Look back through history and you will see the most revered pioneers in science were the ones who were able to break through that convention, but in their wake are dozens who were ridiculed and scoffed.

Take for example the theory of continental drift and Pangaea.

Right ... that's why you should always get your science from your politician. And we all know there is never any bias from blogs and corporate think-tanks so they're safe too!!

Fark those damn scientists and their evidence. They weren't perfect every time in the past, and even though they eventually corrected themselves, well fark them! We get our science from our guts now!! No more of those elitists and their devilish book lernin'!!


Thats what you got from my post?
/I certainly said nothing about politicians
//did you check the example?
 
2013-06-19 12:11:18 AM  

GilRuiz1: What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"? Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world? If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.


The question of why existence exists is unanswerable since there is no possible way it could ever be tested. I posit that existence, as a "thing" must "be" before anything else can "be". It's the container of reality. How can the origin of being be known? I know this gets into existentialism and such from here, but the idea that it's always possible to know anything is a rewrite of saying that it's impossible to know anything for certain. The same faulty line of thinking that even Aristotle rejected as having no purpose. We can set boundaries and say "yeah, good enough". It's the difference between making a standard deviation of a sample and a standard deviation of a population. For most cases, the population SD doesn't give you a compellingly different outcome than a good sample. We are mostly arguing about what valid samples are.

There is a bigger issue at hand here, though: Why is about motivation, and it, in itself, suggests thought, so it is, by nature, a question that if misapplied, easily moves to the realm of Intelligent Design. There are plenty of "why" questions that can be answered, so I need to moderate my "anti-why" view. Why a bear attacked someone is a valid "why" question. Why the chicken crossed the road is, too. These are questions of behavior and thought. Many times "why" is really answered with an answer for "how". Why is matter and not antimatter the dominant form of matter in the universe is really an answer of how it came to be via physics. Maybe I'm just being pedantic in my semantics, but you ask a good question and I think, for me, when we start getting into "why" answers, we quickly go into philosophy and away from anything scientific. If I wanted to keep myself awake, I would ask myself at what point does a "why" become a "how" question. No easy answer and lots of blurry lines. We don't know how life arose, but asking why it arose is a strange question to me.
 
2013-06-19 01:04:19 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: GilRuiz1: What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"? Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world? If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.

The question of why existence exists is unanswerable since there is no possible way it could ever be tested. I posit that existence, as a "thing" must "be" before anything else can "be". It's the container of reality. How can the origin of being be known? I know this gets into existentialism and such from here, but the idea that it's always possible to know anything is a rewrite of saying that it's impossible to know anything for certain. The same faulty line of thinking that even Aristotle rejected as having no purpose. We can set boundaries and say "yeah, good enough". It's the difference between making a standard deviation of a sample and a standard deviation of a population. For most cases, the population SD doesn't give you a compellingly different outcome than a good sample. We are mostly arguing about what valid samples are.

There is a bigger issue at hand here, though: Why is about motivation, and it, in itself, suggests thought, so it is, by nature, a question that if misapplied, easily moves to the realm of Intelligent Design. There are plenty of "why" questions that can be answered, so I need to moderate my "anti-why" view. Why a bear attacked someone is a valid "why" question. Why the chicken crossed the road is, too. These are questions of behavior and thought. Many times "why" is really answered with an answer for "how". Why is matter and not antimatter the dominant form of matter in the universe is really an answer of how it came to be via physics. Maybe I'm just being ...


42
 
2013-06-19 01:09:22 AM  

Mambo Bananapatch: mamoru: GilRuiz1: What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"? Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world? If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.

Because any line of questioning involving why must either be infinite (imagine the child continually asking "why?" questions to every answer you give) or ultimately end with some equivalent to "because it just is, so stop asking", which is a rather unsatisfactory answer.

Why is that?


Because it just is, so stop asking. :p

;)
 
2013-06-19 04:54:54 AM  
As a working scientist, I find threads like these utterly depressing.
 
2013-06-19 08:25:53 AM  

Frederick: Thats what you got from my post?
/I certainly said nothing about politicians
//did you check the example?


There are certainly examples in history where scientists have had trouble bringing in new ideas. Of course, people who make this argument always tend to ignore the fact that the ideas do eventually break through because, for science, the evidence always wins in the end. It sometimes takes a little longer than it should due to the fact that we are all human and people can become attached to ideas they have spent years working on.

I brought in the politicians because that is where the arguments against AGW come from. Technically they come from the politicians' corporate puppet masters who profit from the status quo but the fact is that they have been able to divide a scientific issue along political lines. It is a completely ludicrous idea that your political alignment should affect how you look at scientific evidence ... but here it is.

Your attempt to undermine scientists' credibility in an AGW thread inherently supports the politically based denier position. If this was a thread discussing the history of science or the scientific review process in general then it might be a relevant point.
 
2013-06-19 08:57:43 AM  

ansius: As a working scientist, I find threads like these utterly depressing.


Don't worry.  I'm sure you can take solace in the fleet of gold-plated Ferraris that come with each new NSF grant.  Fark Independents have proven that any scientist can just repeat the words "Al Gore is fat!" into a mirror three times at midnight and the Government Giant Novelty Check Van will pull right up to the door.
 
2013-06-19 11:07:59 AM  
Venus = 96%
Earth = .03%

You just can't equate that no matter what partisan stance you assume

.039 is this much l.l
 
2013-06-19 12:51:34 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: GilRuiz1: What is it about nature or science or reality that leads you to believe we will never discover a "why"? Is it because an answer to "why" cannot be discovered by empirical investigations of the material world? If a "why" did exist, what would it look like, and how come it can't be scientifically arrived at?

I ask because you seem certain not only that we can't discover the answer, but that it can never be discovered by anyone ever. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.

The question of why existence exists is unanswerable since there is no possible way it could ever be tested. I posit that existence, as a "thing" must "be" before anything else can "be". It's the container of reality. How can the origin of being be known? I know this gets into existentialism and such from here, but the idea that it's always possible to know anything is a rewrite of saying that it's impossible to know anything for certain. The same faulty line of thinking that even Aristotle rejected as having no purpose. We can set boundaries and say "yeah, good enough". It's the difference between making a standard deviation of a sample and a standard deviation of a population. For most cases, the population SD doesn't give you a compellingly different outcome than a good sample. We are mostly arguing about what valid samples are.

There is a bigger issue at hand here, though: Why is about motivation, and it, in itself, suggests thought, so it is, by nature, a question that if misapplied, easily moves to the realm of Intelligent Design. There are plenty of "why" questions that can be answered, so I need to moderate my "anti-why" view. Why a bear attacked someone is a valid "why" question. Why the chicken crossed the road is, too. These are questions of behavior and thought. Many times "why" is really answered with an answer for "how". Why is matter and not antimatter the dominant form of matter in the universe is really an answer of how it came to be via physics. Maybe I'm just being ...



"Why" implies or presupposes action by an intelligent agent?  Ok, that makes sense.  I could go with that.

It's going to rankle some people, though, to tell them that there are questions that science cannot answer.  Folks 'round these parts don't take kindly to hearing that.
 
2013-06-19 01:05:33 PM  

GilRuiz1: "Why" implies or presupposes action by an intelligent agent? Ok, that makes sense. I could go with that.

It's going to rankle some people, though, to tell them that there are questions that science cannot answer. Folks 'round these parts don't take kindly to hearing that.


I feel that there are no questions that science can not answer, it is just that we have not discovered the means to allow science to answer the questions we still have no answers to.  The truth is that the more science uncovers and discovers, the more plainly obvious it is that an "intelligent agent" had nothing whatever to do with anything.  Chance.  That is why we are here.  A meteor or comet or something very much like that smashed into this rock and seeded it with something resembling the organic building blocks needed to start the genesis project, the rock just happened to have formed the right amount away from its star for the atmosphere and weather to form and what not, who knows, point is that it happened and no "god" had anything at all to do with it.

fairy tales are just that.
 
2013-06-19 01:34:10 PM  

frepnog: GilRuiz1: "Why" implies or presupposes action by an intelligent agent? Ok, that makes sense. I could go with that.

It's going to rankle some people, though, to tell them that there are questions that science cannot answer. Folks 'round these parts don't take kindly to hearing that.

I feel that there are no questions that science can not answer, it is just that we have not discovered the means to allow science to answer the questions we still have no answers to.  The truth is that the more science uncovers and discovers, the more plainly obvious it is that an "intelligent agent" had nothing whatever to do with anything.  Chance.  That is why we are here.  A meteor or comet or something very much like that smashed into this rock and seeded it with something resembling the organic building blocks needed to start the genesis project, the rock just happened to have formed the right amount away from its star for the atmosphere and weather to form and what not, who knows, point is that it happened and no "god" had anything at all to do with it.

fairy tales are just that.


Never ask a question you do not know the answer to.
And never accept imagination or belief as anything real.
 
2013-06-19 01:43:06 PM  

snocone: Never ask a question you do not know the answer to.
And never accept imagination or belief as anything real.


wut?  now that's just crazy talk.
 
2013-06-19 02:58:43 PM  

snocone: Venus = 96%
Earth = .03%

You just can't equate that no matter what partisan stance you assume

.039 is this much l.l


Do you know how Venus came to have 96% CO2?
 
2013-06-19 03:50:32 PM  
is this also the same Bill Nye that said he could tell you how Superman shaves with science, without first reading the comic explaining how Superman already shaves (research, how does it work)?

yep...

http://io9.com/bill-nye-scientifically-explains-how-superman-shaves- 51 0090170
 
2013-06-19 04:00:34 PM  

trey101: is this also the same Bill Nye that said he could tell you how Superman shaves with science, without first reading the comic explaining how Superman already shaves (research, how does it work)?

yep...

http://io9.com/bill-nye-scientifically-explains-how-superman-shaves- 51 0090170


You understand that:
a) Superman is not real
b) Reading fictional accounts of something fictional does not constitute scientific research
c) This is a thought experiment for entertainment value
d) Looking up how it was done in the comic book would defeat the purpose of the thought experiment
e) He was trying to introduce some engineering/material concepts - he often takes the role of teacher
f) The "wooshing" sound you heard was you completely missing the point of posing this question
 
2013-06-19 04:58:15 PM  

Farking Canuck: trey101: is this also the same Bill Nye that said he could tell you how Superman shaves with science, without first reading the comic explaining how Superman already shaves (research, how does it work)?

yep...

http://io9.com/bill-nye-scientifically-explains-how-superman-shaves- 51 0090170

You understand that:
a) Superman is not real
b) Reading fictional accounts of something fictional does not constitute scientific research
c) This is a thought experiment for entertainment value
d) Looking up how it was done in the comic book would defeat the purpose of the thought experiment
e) He was trying to introduce some engineering/material concepts - he often takes the role of teacher
f) The "wooshing" sound you heard was you completely missing the point of posing this question


you do realize

1) it was tongue and cheek
2)that "doppler effect" sound you just heard was the point rushing by you like an F1 car.
 
2013-06-19 05:08:16 PM  

megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.


It's kind of a subtle point. Math isn't science; it's the language of science.

Science deals with empirical evidence; it uses mathematics to describe it. Empirical evidence is irrelevant to mathematical proofs; mathematics is only concerned with abstract relationships of abstract entities under some (quasi-arbitrary) axiomatic system. Some of the entities, relationships, and axioms may correspond to empirical phenomena. However, more evidence can never invalidate a mathematical proof; at most (as in the "1+1=3" example being bandied about) the non-correspondence of evidence and mathematics means that you're using the wrong mathematics to describe the evidence. Science is (roughly speaking) the process of figuring out which math best describes the evidence.
 
2013-06-19 05:19:35 PM  
abb3w:  It's kind of a subtle point. Math isn't science; it's the language of science.

"Math is a science".  "No, math isn't science".

This is essentially a philosophy question.  It's not a new one, and we certainly aren't going to reach a definitive answer in this thread.

Wiki has a bit on it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science

And there is a page on the philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Personally, I believe math is a science, but I can understand why some would disagree.
 
2013-06-19 05:28:19 PM  

trey101: you do realize

1) it was tongue and cheek


Well, since this is a science denier thread, I am going to claim Poe's Law. There are a lot of people attacking Bill Nye's credibility in this thread and they are dim enough to go with the argument that you presented.
 
Displayed 44 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report