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 59
    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»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-18 08:57:30 AM
17 votes:

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 08:23:04 AM
14 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-06-18 08:29:35 AM
8 votes:
Sounds like this guy is up to his neck in college-age 'tang. . . .
2013-06-18 08:19:41 AM
8 votes:
I wonder what would happen if Bill turned out to be this reality's incarnation of the Doctor...

*ponder!*
2013-06-18 08:42:53 AM
4 votes:

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?


24.media.tumblr.com
Who the fark cares?
2013-06-18 12:09:22 PM
3 votes:

mamoru: If science answers "how?" questions, then by definition, that includes "how come?"


For most farkers, masturbation.
2013-06-18 08:52:09 AM
3 votes:
Dr. Laura, now, that's a P.H.D. that really means something.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 08:17:16 AM
3 votes:
Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.
2013-06-18 10:52:33 AM
2 votes:
Stop worshiping TV personality, Bill Nye. First he was mad that no one believed in "global warming." Now that it snows in summer, he calls it "climate change." News flash! Climates change! It's not that people don't believe in natural fluctuations of climate, it's that many people don't think it's such a big deal that they need to stop living (or in some cases flying on private jets).
2013-06-18 09:53:49 AM
2 votes:
2013-06-18 09:32:45 AM
2 votes:
When y'all are ready for a real science broadcaster, let me know.  I'll make the Connections.

1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-18 08:58:41 AM
2 votes:
www.pri.org

He knows more than you do.

That's because he has a master's degree ..... in science!
2013-06-18 08:55:42 AM
2 votes:
o.onionstatic.com
2013-06-18 08:39:08 AM
2 votes:

utah dude: science is just another religion.


0/10
2013-06-18 08:36:18 AM
2 votes:
science is just another religion.
2013-06-18 04:25:30 PM
1 votes:

Thai_Mai_Xhu: Still waiting to see one trans species.
Difficulty; No platypussies allowed.


you remind me of this lady



Dawkins vs. Wright
2013-06-18 01:44:57 PM
1 votes:

udhq: Eapoe6: Extrapolate that same motivation into Peer Reviewed Journals and overpaid Academics. Lot's of things are supressed, so the established academics are not laughed out of their jobs. The con of man is an ego thing coupled with a desire to enjot co-eds.

Ummm, no.  There's no comparison between the two.  The economics--with the corresponding biases--are completely different.

Also, the phrase "overpaid Academic" indicates that you are speaking beyond your expertise here.  Try and think of another profession that requires a decade's worth of education for a 5 figure salary.  It's ok, I'll wait.

I'll give you this, our system of academic publishing in country needs to be reformed, but it's not the "academic" part that's broken.


I repectfully disagree; but since this is Fark, insert some kind of insult to denote my disapproval for the your views.
2013-06-18 12:59:10 PM
1 votes:

udhq: Carn: 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.

math is hard.

Let's go to the mall.


omg shoes!
2013-06-18 12:58:07 PM
1 votes:

Carn: 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.

math is hard.


Let's go to the mall.
2013-06-18 12:48:16 PM
1 votes:

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?


More than you can count.  Well, more than YOU can count, anyway.
2013-06-18 12:06:55 PM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: 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.


The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.



i40.tinypic.com
2013-06-18 11:34:45 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: et no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.

wat


Heh, there is a rule in climate change debates - take the current year (or whatever year you have data up to). Take away 1998 from that year. What result does that give you? 15. Okay then, 15 is the number of years we currently should be looking at when deciding if the climate is changing. Not 14, not 16, and 20 is right out. I wonder why this rule exists, if there is some underlying scientific reason for why (currently) 15 years is all the proof you need of what is happening to climate and no other time period will do?
2013-06-18 11:27:46 AM
1 votes:

Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?


oneworkingmusician.com
2013-06-18 11:14:11 AM
1 votes:

SpectroBoy: THE GREAT NAME: I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.

Wow, he thinks he's winning!?!?!?


Of course he does; he doesn't understand science.
2013-06-18 11:12:27 AM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.


Wow, he thinks he's winning!?!?!?
2013-06-18 11:09:41 AM
1 votes:

mafiageek1980: Ed Beagly Jr


www.votable.com
2013-06-18 11:01:58 AM
1 votes:

oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.


i44.tinypic.com
2013-06-18 10:51:18 AM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: WARMING TO USERS:


lol @ my typo
2013-06-18 10:29:20 AM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cubic_spleen: THE GREAT NAME:

The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.

The fact that you are too dumb to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.

Actually, I agree that failing to understand science does not make science wrong. But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

How do you feel about geology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology?

Geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology all have MUCH MUCH bigger collections of supporting evidence. And with all three one could dig up or point a telescope at something that would falsify them. There are no concealed models or raw data sets. There is no attempt to invoke Pascal's wager to force people to accept them. And in these fields, peer reveiw is done reasonably thoroughly (though from what I hear still not perfectly) unlike in climatology where it's a pat on the back from a like-minded buddy.

Beware: judgements will be made.

Let me check my worry pocket - oh look, it's empty.


Your posts in this thread this morning have all the credibility and value of my post-blackout beer shiats.
2013-06-18 10:28:18 AM
1 votes:
i30.photobucket.com

You've come a lone way from SPEEEEEEEED WALLLLLLKER!
2013-06-18 10:10:56 AM
1 votes:

ph0rk: The word "proven" shouldn't be used when discussing science. Science demonstrates evidence that supports claims, it doesn't prove anything.


Sure it does. While scientific evidence supports claims of magnets sticking to iron, cobalt, or nickel, me sticking my a magnet on my refrigerator proves it.
2013-06-18 10:02:38 AM
1 votes:

Allen. The end.: 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.

Genesis??? You've got to be kidding me.


www.startrek.com

/oblig
//hot like an unstable planet
2013-06-18 09:43:29 AM
1 votes:

cubic_spleen: THE GREAT NAME:

The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.

The fact that you are too dumb to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.


Actually, I agree that failing to understand science does not make science wrong. But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?
2013-06-18 09:42:31 AM
1 votes:
i227.photobucket.com
2013-06-18 09:37:14 AM
1 votes:

FLmassage1: utah dude: science is just another religion.

But you don't have to believe in it for it to work.


Says you. I didn't believe in gravity the other day and it took me four hours to get down.
2013-06-18 09:30:32 AM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.



Bill had me convinced, but now I'm swinging your way.  Great point, man.
2013-06-18 09:23:38 AM
1 votes:
Wow, the trolls are up early today.
2013-06-18 09:17:46 AM
1 votes:

Skywolf the Scribbler: 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.


A bunch of big words to say "Bill Nye should throw science away and look for Jesus".  Because that is what I think you actually meant to say.  You are part of the problem.  You try to sound intelligent and knowledgeable by using big words and flashy sentences while what you are really doing is trying to look smart while claiming "JESUS".

You are what Bill is fighting against.  I hope he wins because your side, the "oh but it could have been JESUS" side are gaddammed morans.
2013-06-18 09:17:17 AM
1 votes:
i3.ytimg.com
PROFESSOR JULIUS SUMNER MILLER (The Hilarious House of Frightenstein)

/was into science BEFORE there was science!
2013-06-18 09:10:03 AM
1 votes:

meanmutton: 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.


Both of these statements are absolute. Examples to the contrary exist. Historical and literary evidence is evaluated by individuals with academic credentials in religious fields. Forces of physics which are not understood, such as the Bermuda Triangle, remain hypothetical.
2013-06-18 09:07:23 AM
1 votes:

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 09:05:21 AM
1 votes:
I still want you Bill!

I'm outside your house right now!

www.john-robert-brown.com
2013-06-18 09:04:26 AM
1 votes:

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



FTFM
2013-06-18 09:00:29 AM
1 votes:

utah dude: science is just another religion.


Just like atheism, right?
2013-06-18 08:56:28 AM
1 votes:
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 08:56:24 AM
1 votes:

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


Oops
2013-06-18 08:47:53 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-18 08:44:42 AM
1 votes:
I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-18 08:44:17 AM
1 votes:

steamingpile: Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Because as we all know, if something can happen naturally, it is impossible for man to make it happen. Even  when six thousand million of them are working together.
2013-06-18 08:41:11 AM
1 votes:
*plugs nose* SCIENCE RULES!
2013-06-18 08:38:24 AM
1 votes:

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?


How many PhD's are actually educators? Most are researchers dragged reluctantly into the classroom, where they suck. Teachers don't have to have advanced degrees to teach, especially when they're teaching secondary-school-level science the way he is.

He's a "science guy," not a scientist.
2013-06-18 08:35:21 AM
1 votes:
PAT CASHMAN RULES
2013-06-18 08:32:38 AM
1 votes:
I imagine a few hours later he's at a frat house living a Girls Gone Wild episode on his face.
2013-06-18 08:31:25 AM
1 votes:

oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.


Bowties are cool.

The Doctor deems it so, it must be true.
2013-06-18 08:30:53 AM
1 votes:

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


Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.
2013-06-18 08:29:45 AM
1 votes:

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


Well, it works better for him than most people.  Imagine if Snookie was involved in a science debate and called somebody an idiot.  Nobody would care or give it much weight.  But when Bill Nye the guy who personally taught me science as a child guy says somebody doesnt know what they're talking about... you're going to stop and listen to what he has to say.  Especially if he's in a white lab coat.
2013-06-18 08:29:41 AM
1 votes:

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.



The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.
2013-06-18 08:29:05 AM
1 votes:
Sure, but he's obviously no John Stamos.
2013-06-18 08:22:22 AM
1 votes:
BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! ...

(Somebody had to...)
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report