Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Mother Nature Network)   Jane Goodall, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson would all like it if you marched for science this upcoming weekend   ( mnn.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Neil deGrasse Tyson, science, Bill Nye, Bill Nye the Science Guy, science series narrator, Reddit message board, space science, official website states  
•       •       •

1623 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2017 at 7:20 AM (30 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-04-19 07:16:46 AM  
So as I posted to the wrong thread, I am so there in spirit. I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for science. And the attacks on it from the right drive me nanners. I hope they get a yuge turnout!
 
2017-04-19 07:20:02 AM  
If you're not a DC resident, people are hosting hundreds of satellite marches across the country and the planet. Come join us at one!

/I'll be manning the information booth at the KC march myself
 
2017-04-19 07:21:35 AM  
They hate Pluto.
 
2017-04-19 07:28:49 AM  

BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.


img.fark.netDon't worry, there are top men on the case.
 
2017-04-19 07:29:18 AM  
img.fark.net
I'm in!  (Toronto march)
 
2017-04-19 07:30:20 AM  

BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.


The Pluto thing is so weird.

Like, scientists decide to reclassify a distant and lifeless lump of rock, adding on the adjective "dwarf" to better align it with what we know about the Solar System and the bodies in it.

People, many of whom purport to love science, react with outrage and fury, because the planet/dwarf-planet distinction was not precisely the cosmology they had been taught when they were younger.

Makes it a bit easier to understand the Church's response to heliocentrism, I think.
 
2017-04-19 07:31:46 AM  
Nah, that's okay, I'll pass. But they can all take turns polishing my knob.

/weird science
 
2017-04-19 07:33:12 AM  
I'm not exactly Mr. Outgoing, especially during allergy season, but I might be able to make something this Saturday.. oh wait, my sister and her family are coming to visit.  Perhaps not.
 
2017-04-19 07:36:35 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-04-19 07:38:23 AM  
Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.
 
2017-04-19 07:40:40 AM  
"What started out as a simple call the action..."

Who needs editors when you have spell-check?
 
2017-04-19 07:44:21 AM  

BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.


Pluto has an atmosphere, mercury doesn't.
 
2017-04-19 07:44:34 AM  

pkjun: BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.

The Pluto thing is so weird.

Like, scientists decide to reclassify a distant and lifeless lump of rock, adding on the adjective "dwarf" to better align it with what we know about the Solar System and the bodies in it.

People, many of whom purport to love science, react with outrage and fury, because the planet/dwarf-planet distinction was not precisely the cosmology they had been taught when they were younger.

Makes it a bit easier to understand the Church's response to heliocentrism, I think.


Learning new information is hard.  People like the facts they've "always known" to remain true.  Of course, Pluto's status is especially trivial, since it's just a definition.  It's not like calling it a planet or a dwarf planet changes anything meaningful about it.  It's still a little lump of rock too far away from the sun and too small to be of substantial value for human exploration.
 
2017-04-19 07:46:54 AM  

Shadowknight: BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.

[img.fark.net image 425x355]Don't worry, there are top men on the case.


Who?
 
2017-04-19 07:47:35 AM  

SuperChuck: Shadowknight: BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.

[img.fark.net image 425x355]Don't worry, there are top men on the case.

Who?


Top.  Men.
 
2017-04-19 07:53:08 AM  
I don't march, I vote. Although, living in Texas, it doesn't do much good.
 
2017-04-19 07:54:09 AM  
Bill Nye the science guy?
Why not Professor Proton? He was the original, right?
 
2017-04-19 07:57:41 AM  

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


Well, the conservatives don't like science because it points out that the way they make money is detrimental to the world as a whole. And if religious people believed in science, they wouldn't be religious.
 
2017-04-19 07:57:58 AM  
I don't see why people like bill nye.  wasn't that guy in the rat costume smarter than him most of the time
 
2017-04-19 08:00:43 AM  
Oh, that would be great! Wait, this weekend? Well, I can't, I've already made plans. Anyway, if I just Like the post on FB and share it on Twitter, it's just as good, right?
#marchforseance
 
2017-04-19 08:01:33 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: Learning new information is hard. People like the facts they've "always known" to remain true. Of course, Pluto's status is especially trivial, since it's just a definition. It's not like calling it a planet or a dwarf planet changes anything meaningful about it. It's still a little lump of rock too far away from the sun and too small to be of substantial value for human exploration.


Pretty much.  I understand the reclassification.  It's tiny, it has a LOT of neighbors that don't orbit it, but it also has moons.  It didn't quite fit into the category of planet and wasn't quite an asteroid/comet/etc.
 
2017-04-19 08:01:45 AM  
I'll be there, and if Nazis show up, I'll be a-punchin'!
 
2017-04-19 08:01:51 AM  

pkjun: Like, scientists decide to reclassify a distant and lifeless lump of rock, adding on the adjective "dwarf" to better align it with what we know about the Solar System and the bodies in it. People, many of whom purport to love science, react with outrage and fury, because the planet/dwarf-planet distinction was not precisely the cosmology they had been taught when they were younger.

Well, you have that mostly wrong.  The decision was made by a group of people in the IAU who were not planetary scientists.  To back their decision, they made up a completely bullshiat "cleared its zone" rule backed by a vote.  The classification was not based on any scientific or even rational criteria, but rather a quirk within our own system for which we have zero other data points with which to compare, so as far as we know may be unique.  Do other stars have a bunch of these so-called "dwarf planets" at around the same distance?  No way to know with current technology.
So they did not make an unbiased definition that happened to exclude Pluto; they literally changed the definition of "planet" to justify their intent to demote it.  The new definition basically reads between its lines, "How can we define a planet such that Pluto isn't one?"  So, basically the complete opposite of science.  Not that the previous definition -- which was just a club of sorts -- was acceptable, so it had to be changed at some point, but their move wasn't any less biased.

Drop the "cleared its area" rule and the "problem" is that a bunch more objects qualify, including Ceres, Eris and a bunch more yet to be discovered.  The total could climb into the hundreds.  That would require re-writing some textbooks and they complain it would be "too many" to teach, but this is an extremely odd concern.  Taxonomists aren't fazed by the fact that there are thousands of species catalogued (if anything they like the job security), and it's not like the medical community threw up their hands and gave up once it became evident the human skeleton had (gasp!) dozens of bones.  Chemists are always trying to come up with new compounds, leaving it to organic chemistry undergrads to mutter about how there are "too many".  Well, it turns out that instead of having eight or nine planets, the Sun may have hundreds.  So. . . what's the problem?  It's exciting to find out just how wrong we were.  The IAU is being extremely reactionary and weird.
 
2017-04-19 08:02:41 AM  

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


That mumbo jumbo makes some people a lot of money.
 
2017-04-19 08:03:45 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: And if religious people believed in science, they wouldn't be religious.


Bullshiat.  Jesuits and Muslims shiat on that idea.  Hell, the Koran specifically states that people are to be educated.

\ He who issues forth in search of knowledge is busy in the cause of Allah till he returns from his quest.
 
2017-04-19 08:05:22 AM  

Soulless Carbon Rod: Bill Nye the science guy?
Why not Professor Proton? He was the original, right?


"That's what I told my lawyers."
 
2017-04-19 08:05:44 AM  

SpaceyCat: Tyrone Slothrop: And if religious people believed in science, they wouldn't be religious.

Bullshiat.  Jesuits and Muslims shiat on that idea.  Hell, the Koran specifically states that people are to be educated.

\ He who issues forth in search of knowledge is busy in the cause of Allah till he returns from his quest.


The pope has a masters in chemistry.
 
2017-04-19 08:10:11 AM  
I'm glad the march is going on and will probably attend the one here in L.A., but...

I feel we need the 'Merica tag here as in 21st Century America it is shameful defending science and facts have to be made into a big deal.
 
2017-04-19 08:10:38 AM  

dragonchild: but rather a quirk within our own system for which we have zero other data points with which to compare


Ummmm... that's how we've made up the majority of the terms and definitions we have.  Basically "Oh, this is what happens here, so we'll call it this!"  As other data points are added, then things get modified.
 
2017-04-19 08:11:56 AM  

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


Christianity is pretty solidly Iron Age, if you buy into that whole "X Age" malarkey. (I mean, Rome and all that.)

So is Judaism, mind you -- the Torah was written about Bronze Age herders, but was written by urban priests in the Persian client kingdom of Judah.  How accurately you believe it reflects the beliefs of their Bronze Age ancestors depends on how accurate a historical record you want to claim the Torah is.

Ironically, claiming that Judeo-Christian belief is "Bronze Age" is to claim that it survived, intact, with no significant human alteration, for well over a thousand years until it was first put to paper, and then has survived for a further 2500 years in its pure original state.

 I can hardly think of a more impressive argument for its truth.
 
2017-04-19 08:13:10 AM  

JulieAzel626: I feel we need the 'Merica tag here as in 21st Century America it is shameful defending science and facts have to be made into a big deal.


Ya rly.  We're heading back into the Dark Ages because it's not what I believe! has become the defense of ignorance and the unwillingness to learn.
 
2017-04-19 08:17:40 AM  

Serious Black: If you're not a DC resident, people are hosting hundreds of satellite marches across the country and the planet. Come join us at one!

/I'll be manning the information booth at the KC march myself


Marching in NYC.
 
2017-04-19 08:19:11 AM  

pkjun: Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.

Christianity is pretty solidly Iron Age, if you buy into that whole "X Age" malarkey. (I mean, Rome and all that.)

So is Judaism, mind you -- the Torah was written about Bronze Age herders, but was written by urban priests in the Persian client kingdom of Judah.  How accurately you believe it reflects the beliefs of their Bronze Age ancestors depends on how accurate a historical record you want to claim the Torah is.

Ironically, claiming that Judeo-Christian belief is "Bronze Age" is to claim that it survived, intact, with no significant human alteration, for well over a thousand years until it was first put to paper, and then has survived for a further 2500 years in its pure original state.

 I can hardly think of a more impressive argument for its truth.


The documents written in Judeo-Christian history and dogma have no more or less merit than documents and records written in ancient India and ancient China.
 
2017-04-19 08:22:37 AM  

SpaceyCat: JulieAzel626: I feel we need the 'Merica tag here as in 21st Century America it is shameful defending science and facts have to be made into a big deal.

Ya rly.  We're heading back into the Dark Ages because it's not what I believe! has become the defense of ignorance and the unwillingness to learn.


And having a "sincerely held" belief overrules everything else.  You can be as shiatty as you want to other people, because you have a "sincerely held" belief!
 
2017-04-19 08:23:51 AM  
img.fark.net

Unable to attend.
 
2017-04-19 08:27:51 AM  
I'm working on my protest sign tonight, and will be driving up to DC at the crack of ass Saturday morning. I had made my hotel reservation back in February so the Warrior and I can chill after the march (he lives here in Raleigh but works at the Pentagon so he rents just a room in MD during the week).

/keeping tabs on weather, will be waterproofing sign
//meteorology - SCIENCE!!!
///will be wearing my black Trekkie tshirt
 
2017-04-19 08:30:12 AM  
like outside?  can't we just march in second life or something?  all agree to watch Big Bang Theory?
 
2017-04-19 08:35:03 AM  

Jake Havechek: pkjun: Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.

Christianity is pretty solidly Iron Age, if you buy into that whole "X Age" malarkey. (I mean, Rome and all that.)

So is Judaism, mind you -- the Torah was written about Bronze Age herders, but was written by urban priests in the Persian client kingdom of Judah.  How accurately you believe it reflects the beliefs of their Bronze Age ancestors depends on how accurate a historical record you want to claim the Torah is.

Ironically, claiming that Judeo-Christian belief is "Bronze Age" is to claim that it survived, intact, with no significant human alteration, for well over a thousand years until it was first put to paper, and then has survived for a further 2500 years in its pure original state.

 I can hardly think of a more impressive argument for its truth.

The documents written in Judeo-Christian history and dogma have no more or less merit than documents and records written in ancient India and ancient China.


Agreed, with caveats. Valuable historical records all, so long as you keep appraised of the limitations and intentions of the authors of each.

Sima Qian obviously had good records going back well over a thousand years, and the authors of the Abrahamic religious books tend to be more than a bit fuzzy on anything that happened out of living memory.

But they're excellent records of what people in certain places and times believed to be true, and that's interesting in its own right.
 
2017-04-19 08:35:26 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: pkjun: BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.

The Pluto thing is so weird.

Like, scientists decide to reclassify a distant and lifeless lump of rock, adding on the adjective "dwarf" to better align it with what we know about the Solar System and the bodies in it.

People, many of whom purport to love science, react with outrage and fury, because the planet/dwarf-planet distinction was not precisely the cosmology they had been taught when they were younger.

Makes it a bit easier to understand the Church's response to heliocentrism, I think.

Learning new information is hard.  People like the facts they've "always known" to remain true.  Of course, Pluto's status is especially trivial, since it's

just a definition.  It's not like calling it a planet or a dwarf planet changes anything meaningful about it.  It's still a little lump of rock too far away from the sun and too small to be of substantial value for human exploration.

This.  Planet (defn):
1) celestial body that revolves around a central star or star(s) of a certain size/mass
2) one of the nine celestial bodies in our solar system listed here: Mercury, Venus, Earth,...Uranus, Pluto

there exact definition satisfied with an honorary nod to Pluto.  I get science needs specificity but no one has started a campaign to have tomatoes moved to the fruit section of grocery stores.
 
2017-04-19 08:36:02 AM  

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


Honestly doesn't surprise me. People want to feel special, protected, and full of purpose. Religion due that. They claim humility and piety, but in the end it comes down to "You're special, because God loves you and you and yours are the chosen few!"

As big and incomprehensible as God is supposed to be, they make it very, very small and personal.

Science really does have the tendency to make you feel small and random. We are a chance encounter of carbon and energy that resulted in life springing up in this small blue rock among a truly incomprehensible number of other specs of stardust that may or may not have done the same thing. All by an eternity's with of repeated cosmic accidents leading up to us.

I myself find that to be way more awe inspiring than some sky daddy making us out of clay to worship him.
 
2017-04-19 08:36:25 AM  

SuperChuck: Shadowknight: BalugaJoe: They hate Pluto.

[img.fark.net image 425x355]Don't worry, there are top men on the case.

Who?


Top. Men.
 
2017-04-19 08:36:38 AM  
Heading to a conference in Bethesda, staying for the D.C. march. Not bringing a sign though.
 
2017-04-19 08:40:50 AM  
It's no March for Science if they are pushing the Man Made Global Warming Hoax nonsense

If they truly were in support for science...they would call for more research on climate...not settle on "consensus" based on debunked research from IPCC.
 
2017-04-19 08:42:09 AM  

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


Don't forget the anti-vax, anti-pharm, and anti-GMO lefties out there. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on anti-science shiat.
 
2017-04-19 08:42:52 AM  

dragonchild: Drop the "cleared its area" rule and the "problem" is that a bunch more objects qualify, including Ceres, Eris and a bunch more yet to be discovered.


I can see your point about why that's not really a problem. But at some point we should start to wonder if the definition of a planet if too broad one it includes Jupiter and Ceres. Instead of comparing it to the existence of hundreds (at a conservative estimate) of species, I'd compare it to having a species that includes both cats and dogs. Sure, there are plenty of similarities but there are enough differences to believe that maybe we should consider splitting it up.

When we only knew about Pluto, it made sense to leave it as a planet. We had all sorts of dogs and a single weird dog that said "meow". But then we started finding a lot more of these weird dogs and so there was a reason to sit down and think about whether it would be worth it to call them cats instead. Nobody is trying to specifically demote that one cat, but rather using it as the poster child for a whole new group.

The whole "clearing its orbit" thing does feel a little arbitrary, but it fits with what I've always pictured a planet to be. It's this sphere sedately going around the sun. Maybe it has some moons, but it doesn't dance with asteroids and other planets. When I heard the definition, it made sense. Do we have to have two groups of things that are round from their own gravity? Maybe not. But it does make it easier to talk about.
 
2017-04-19 08:45:38 AM  

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


Because they think they'll go to Hell if they use their brains.

This is why religion is child abuse. They were taught to fear knowledge and forbidden to ask questions as children.
 
2017-04-19 08:46:24 AM  

machoprogrammer: Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.

Don't forget the anti-vax, anti-pharm, and anti-GMO lefties out there. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on anti-science shiat.


You aren't wrong there. I've argued with anti vaccination people on both sides of the aisle. The lefty ones are all about natural healing or worries about big pharma, and the right are all "government can'ttell me what to do!"
 
2017-04-19 08:46:39 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: I don't march, I vote. Although, living in Texas, it doesn't do much good.


I dont know where this false dichotomy came from, but it's annoying as fark. Do people really believe that those motivated enough to go to a march don't bother to vote?

Also:  Never forget who won the popular vote.

Might go, but a "march for science" is pro'ly going to be too orderly and peaceful to make an ounce of difference. The only thing that works is _scaring_ those in charge.
 
2017-04-19 08:50:09 AM  
It's really difficult to read Neil DeGrasse Tyson's twitter feed and take him seriously as a scientist.  He's more entertainer.

Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.


Pretty rich coming from the ideology that believes GMO's are the devil, the Y chromosome is a social construct, and that humans are the only animal species without evolved behavioral and cognitive differences based on sex and geography.  And whose adherents are much more likely to be believe in ghosts, spirits, and alien abductions.

And Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who I will now say is a scientific genius without compare agrees:

http://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-sci​e​nce-1780648740
 
2017-04-19 08:50:17 AM  

Shadowknight: machoprogrammer: Jake Havechek: Befuddles me how the conservatives and phony religious reject science in favor of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo.

Don't forget the anti-vax, anti-pharm, and anti-GMO lefties out there. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on anti-science shiat.

You aren't wrong there. I've argued with anti vaccination people on both sides of the aisle. The lefty ones are all about natural healing or worries about big pharma, and the right are all "government can'ttell me what to do!"


Yep. Or the right are "Jesus will heal us and doesn't want us vaxing!". It's ridiculously stupid on both sides.
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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