Skip to content
 
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 Federalist)   Somebody seriously needs to stage an intervention for Neil deGrasse Tyson. He just keeps making stuff up   ( thefederalist.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Neil deGrasse, Dr. Tyson, President Thomas Jefferson, Islamic fundamentalists  
•       •       •

8228 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2014 at 8:20 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-09-17 03:52:22 PM  
i.imgbox.comView Full Size


Are you sure we haven't been invaded by aliens?
 
2014-09-17 04:04:03 PM  

tinyarena: Are you sure we haven't been invaded by aliens?


Yes, having eyes is an alien trait. I saw that on Ancient Aliens.
 
2014-09-17 04:04:38 PM  

Wooly Bully: Elegy: Partisanship is disgusting

If you actually believed that, you'd be ripping on this clown's ludicrous blog post for the rabid partisan hit job that it obviously is.


For being correct when he criticizes NDG's claims? Why? If the guy brought up NGT's heretofor unknown extra marital affairs, gambling problems, child abuse, or anything similar, that would be a "hit job."

Criticizing a public figure for statements made at a public speech, using research and evidence to back up your criticisms isn't a "hit job" unless you're a blind partisan - which apparently you are.

Once again - from what I know of NDT I like him, and I like his message that science education in this country sucks and we need to do better.

But you know what sucks more than our science education? Making up shiat (uncharitably) or not checking the sources of the evidence you're offering (charitably) in order to criticize our science education. Because that gives people like the author of TFA room to undercut his credibility. As someone that supports science education, more funding for NASA, etc, that sucks the big one.
 
2014-09-17 04:07:46 PM  

Elegy: you're a blind partisan - which apparently you are


That's right, noting this guy's incredibly obvious agenda is proof that I'm partisan, not him!

/ eye roll
 
2014-09-17 04:15:28 PM  

Elegy: Wooly Bully: Elegy: Partisanship is disgusting

If you actually believed that, you'd be ripping on this clown's ludicrous blog post for the rabid partisan hit job that it obviously is.

For being correct when he criticizes NDG's claims? Why? If the guy brought up NGT's heretofor unknown extra marital affairs, gambling problems, child abuse, or anything similar, that would be a "hit job."

Criticizing a public figure for statements made at a public speech, using research and evidence to back up your criticisms isn't a "hit job" unless you're a blind partisan - which apparently you are.

Once again - from what I know of NDT I like him, and I like his message that science education in this country sucks and we need to do better.

But you know what sucks more than our science education? Making up shiat (uncharitably) or not checking the sources of the evidence you're offering (charitably) in order to criticize our science education. Because that gives people like the author of TFA room to undercut his credibility. As someone that supports science education, more funding for NASA, etc, that sucks the big one.



Yes, I can see your point.  What this obviously partisan blogger is frothing himself up about is clearly much more important than science education.
 
2014-09-17 04:19:09 PM  

Chummer45: Elegy: Wooly Bully: Elegy: Partisanship is disgusting

If you actually believed that, you'd be ripping on this clown's ludicrous blog post for the rabid partisan hit job that it obviously is.

For being correct when he criticizes NDG's claims? Why? If the guy brought up NGT's heretofor unknown extra marital affairs, gambling problems, child abuse, or anything similar, that would be a "hit job."

Criticizing a public figure for statements made at a public speech, using research and evidence to back up your criticisms isn't a "hit job" unless you're a blind partisan - which apparently you are.

Once again - from what I know of NDT I like him, and I like his message that science education in this country sucks and we need to do better.

But you know what sucks more than our science education? Making up shiat (uncharitably) or not checking the sources of the evidence you're offering (charitably) in order to criticize our science education. Because that gives people like the author of TFA room to undercut his credibility. As someone that supports science education, more funding for NASA, etc, that sucks the big one.


Yes, I can see your point.  What this obviously partisan blogger is frothing himself up about is clearly much more important than science education.


Isn't the point that making up quotes is bad because it gives obviously partisan bloggers a reason to froth?
 
2014-09-17 04:20:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Are you saying that television has standards comparable to a peer reviewed journal?


Are you saying that if a data from a peer reviewed journal was put on TV it would be invalidated?
 
2014-09-17 04:21:26 PM  

Wooly Bully: Elegy: you're a blind partisan - which apparently you are

That's right, noting this guy's incredibly obvious agenda is proof that I'm partisan, not him!

/ eye roll


No, trying to hand wave this away as a "hit piece" makes you seem like a partisan hack.

Fabricating sources to support your points - whether intentionally or unintentionally - is a serious breach of ethical and professional standards in most arenas, especially in academia. Hell, 18 year old undergraduates fail their classes outright for things like this, and face academic censure for less than this. It doesn't particularly matter if he misremembered or he lied outright: if he's offering evidence, it's his job to make sure the evidence he is offering is real.

I don't think it's beyond the pale to ask that a man that holds a doctorate and who is the current face of science advocacy in America to adhere to the same standards we that hold undergraduates to.

Why do you?
 
2014-09-17 04:24:33 PM  

Egoy3k: Isn't the point that making up quotes is bad because it gives obviously partisan bloggers a reason to froth?


Ding ding ding we have a winner.

There's a reason academics get really pissy over stuff like this. It makes everyone in a discipline look bad and undercuts the validity of everyone's claims - including people that used that work as a base for their own arguments.
 
2014-09-17 04:25:38 PM  

Egoy3k: Chummer45: Elegy: Wooly Bully: Elegy: Partisanship is disgusting

If you actually believed that, you'd be ripping on this clown's ludicrous blog post for the rabid partisan hit job that it obviously is.

For being correct when he criticizes NDG's claims? Why? If the guy brought up NGT's heretofor unknown extra marital affairs, gambling problems, child abuse, or anything similar, that would be a "hit job."

Criticizing a public figure for statements made at a public speech, using research and evidence to back up your criticisms isn't a "hit job" unless you're a blind partisan - which apparently you are.

Once again - from what I know of NDT I like him, and I like his message that science education in this country sucks and we need to do better.

But you know what sucks more than our science education? Making up shiat (uncharitably) or not checking the sources of the evidence you're offering (charitably) in order to criticize our science education. Because that gives people like the author of TFA room to undercut his credibility. As someone that supports science education, more funding for NASA, etc, that sucks the big one.


Yes, I can see your point.  What this obviously partisan blogger is frothing himself up about is clearly much more important than science education.

Isn't the point that making up quotes is bad because it gives obviously partisan bloggers a reason to froth?



No.  The only point of his posts is concern trolling.  By parroting the OMG NDGT IS A BIG FAT LIAR crap that this frother is spewing, he's just joining the chorus of frothers.  It's classic concern trolling, because he's just parroting all of the stupid arguments made by the author, while pretending that his actual motivation is to prevent frothy articles like this.
 
2014-09-17 04:31:54 PM  

Elegy: Egoy3k: Isn't the point that making up quotes is bad because it gives obviously partisan bloggers a reason to froth?

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

There's a reason academics get really pissy over stuff like this. It makes everyone in a discipline look bad and undercuts the validity of everyone's claims - including people that used that work as a base for their own arguments.



Except that none of what NDGT was talking about had anything to do with science, his area of expertise.  He does tons of informal chats all the time, so he's bound to make mistakes here and there.  This article is a complete hack job because it takes a few apparent misstatements and extrapolates from that the notion that NDGT is a big fat liar who is lying to advance a partisan agenda, and therefore nobody should pay any attention to him.  And the concern trolls in this thread are just parroting that notion and pretending that what they're really worried about is that NDGT has somehow completely undermined science.
 
2014-09-17 04:39:25 PM  

Garet Garrett: PaulRB: OK, so what do you think of his views on science?  Are they liberal too?  I don't really understand your point.  Problem is, this seems all about bad mouthing a guy that disagrees with you on global warming and has far too much influence on the public at large with his sciency ideas.  Is there where you are coming from?

My point is that falsely positing a laughably ignorant position doesn't really make you any smarter, or more right.  And when you screw up the distinction between basic principles like average and median to make your point, you're not helping, you're actually contributing to the scientific illiteracy that's supposedly the problem.

He's very political, in the sense that he's peddling a viewpoint, not teaching science.  He's arguing that certain points of view should be believed, rather than demonstrating why they're correct.  In the GWB example, he's not even doing that...he's arguing that other points of view should be rejected because they're held by people who are, he says, ignorami.  When you slander others to make your point, you should expect some heat, and you certainly should expect some cynicism about the validity of your point.


That's a nice way to avoid the question.
 
2014-09-17 04:40:34 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: HeadLever: another lib

He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?  The nerve of that guy.

No, he's liberal because he twists and distorts objective reality in order to create strawmen that he can attack to make a political point.  That his point is the promotion of what he deems worthy of the moniker "science" (or worse, Science) - i.e., self-promotion - just adds a little irony to the situation.

The fabrication of the GWB anecdote is particularly reprehensible.  Bush's speech on the space shuttle disaster wasn't just appropriate, it was deeply moving, and his invocation of the words of Isaiah reflected the sort of heartfelt compassion we haven't seen in the Oval Office since he left.  It was something that any true advocate for scientific discovery should thank him for, as his central message was:  they have died, but their mission will carry on.  I suspect NDT never actually saw the speech.

Telling that his audience simply laps it up, though.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 04:44:48 PM  

Elegy: No, trying to hand wave this away as a "hit piece" makes you seem like a partisan hack.


Nobody could possibly be so dense that they wouldn't see this guy's a Republican attack dog. I think there's a word for pretending not to see the obvious to get attention on the internet.
 
2014-09-17 05:20:37 PM  

Chummer45: No.  The only point of his posts is concern trolling.  By parroting the OMG NDGT IS A BIG FAT LIAR crap that this frother is spewing, he's just joining the chorus of frothers.  It's classic concern trolling, because he's just parroting all of the stupid arguments made by the author, while pretending that his actual motivation is to prevent frothy articles like this.


Bullshiat. Show me where I've called NDT a big fat liar , and I'll buy you a month of total fark.

Chummer45: Except that none of what NDGT was talking about had anything to do with science, his area of expertise.


You are really trying to claim that a man that has a PhD, and whose public reputation is founded on being a science advocate and talking about the state of science education in this country, isn't smart enough to do a lexis-nexus search for a newspaper article, but the chucklehead that wrote this article is?

Yeah, ok, sure. This was all directly related to science education - the same areas where NDT has been a very prominent expert voice and advocate for at least the past 5 years. They were all basic examples that NDT was using to base his claims on.

Stop acting like this was esoteric academic subject. This is basic stuff, stuff like fact checking, stuff an undergraduate would be raked over the coals for.

He does tons of informal chats all the time, so he's bound to make mistakes here and there.  This article is a complete hack job because it takes a few apparent misstatements and extrapolates from that the notion that NDGT is a big fat liar who is lying to advance a partisan agenda, and therefore nobody should pay any attention to him.  And the concern trolls in this thread are just parroting that notion and pretending that what they're really worried about is that NDGT has somehow completely undermined science.

Once again, show me where I've said NDT has undermined all of science.

He has undercut his voice as an advocate for science. How badly, we'll have to wait to see. This article might or might not get traction in the news cycle. In the scope of things, it's not that big of a deal - but what makes it so galling is that he should have known better.

Wooly Bully: Nobody could possibly be so dense that they wouldn't see this guy's a Republican attack dog. I think there's a word for pretending not to see the obvious to get attention on the internet.

Is there a word for people with shiatty reading comprehension? Check upthread - I've already said that it doesn't matter if the guy goes home every night and faps it to his statue of Jeebus.

Becaus why? Because the motivations of the author become irrelevant when he can show strong evidence to support his claims. Motivations are suspect when there is no evidence to back you up, but when you use evidence to support you claims, claims have a way of becoming facts regardless of the motivations of the author. And when facts are raised with supporting evidence, adults deal with the facts.

Partisan children say "b-b-b-but republicans" (or "b-b-b-but libtards") and try to hand wave away facts and pretend it never happened.
 
2014-09-17 05:39:13 PM  

Elegy: Chummer45: No.  The only point of his posts is concern trolling.  By parroting the OMG NDGT IS A BIG FAT LIAR crap that this frother is spewing, he's just joining the chorus of frothers.  It's classic concern trolling, because he's just parroting all of the stupid arguments made by the author, while pretending that his actual motivation is to prevent frothy articles like this.

Bullshiat. Show me where I've called NDT a big fat liar , and I'll buy you a month of total fark.

Chummer45: Except that none of what NDGT was talking about had anything to do with science, his area of expertise.

You are really trying to claim that a man that has a PhD, and whose public reputation is founded on being a science advocate and talking about the state of science education in this country, isn't smart enough to do a lexis-nexus search for a newspaper article, but the chucklehead that wrote this article is?

Yeah, ok, sure. This was all directly related to science education - the same areas where NDT has been a very prominent expert voice and advocate for at least the past 5 years. They were all basic examples that NDT was using to base his claims on.

Stop acting like this was esoteric academic subject. This is basic stuff, stuff like fact checking, stuff an undergraduate would be raked over the coals for.

He does tons of informal chats all the time, so he's bound to make mistakes here and there.  This article is a complete hack job because it takes a few apparent misstatements and extrapolates from that the notion that NDGT is a big fat liar who is lying to advance a partisan agenda, and therefore nobody should pay any attention to him.  And the concern trolls in this thread are just parroting that notion and pretending that what they're really worried about is that NDGT has somehow completely undermined science.

Once again, show me where I've said NDT has undermined all of science.

He has undercut his voice as an advocate for science. How badly, we'll have to wait to see. T ...



Alright, whatever.  Have fun parroting the outrage machine over some ridiculously trivial errors that some redstate.com goober ginned up in a stupid blog post, presumably after combing through hours of NDGT videos.
 
2014-09-17 05:44:22 PM  
NDGT's Cosmos doesn't pull any punches when explaining how religious rejection of science is a terrible and time honored tradition that goes back as far as human records go and continues to this day.

This has made him some serious enemies in the radical fundie crowd and the GOP base (but I repeat myself) ergo these massive whiny partisan hit jobs will continue for the foreseeable future.

That noted, NDGT has better darn well appreciate that he has made himself a huge target to people who now want to tear him down by any means necessary and do his due diligence in terms of sourcing quotes better or at least rebutting obvious hacks like Mr Face-needs-a-punch the sucky blog writer.

That said, being on the list of people the GOP hate with every ounce of their being is generally a pretty good sign you are doing something right.
 
2014-09-17 05:58:58 PM  

quatchi: NDGT's Cosmos doesn't pull any punches when explaining how religious rejection of science is a terrible and time honored tradition that goes back as far as human records go and continues to this day.

This has made him some serious enemies in the radical fundie crowd and the GOP base (but I repeat myself) ergo these massive whiny partisan hit jobs will continue for the foreseeable future.

That noted, NDGT has better darn well appreciate that he has made himself a huge target to people who now want to tear him down by any means necessary and do his due diligence in terms of sourcing quotes better or at least rebutting obvious hacks like Mr Face-needs-a-punch the sucky blog writer.

That said, being on the list of people the GOP hate with every ounce of their being is generally a pretty good sign you are doing something right.


I don't know any reasonable person who can be convinced that black is white (see what I did, there?) by ridiculous dissection arguments again.  The problem is that there are so many unreasonable people around who can't understand the words in front of them, let alone the the deeper meaning and how important specific words are (or are not) to that meaning.  These say things like "Show me where the Constitution mentions abortion!".
 
2014-09-17 07:16:38 PM  
By the way a new torment trailer was posted today.

TTON First Glimpse: http://youtu.be/Gd43NYBzHuk
 
2014-09-17 07:27:02 PM  

Elegy: You are really trying to claim that a man that has a PhD, and whose public reputation is founded on being a science advocate and talking about the state of science education in this country, isn't smart enough to do a lexis-nexus search for a newspaper article, but the chucklehead that wrote this article is?


No, but I am going to point that you're apparently not smart enough to tell the difference between somebody speaking off-the-cuff in real time and a blogger leisurely criticizing him after the fact.
 
2014-09-17 07:34:12 PM  

keylock71: Well, this thread certainly brought out all our resident shiat stirrers...


I thought they did a great job on the Cosmos. Still love the original, but Black Science Man's version was good, too.


I prefer the original, but I was just a kid when it was on (1980?), and had never seen anything like it before, so I was floored. ( seriously, that show changed how I looked at everything).

/ CSB: I remember seeing it again in a  jr. high school science class( publicly funded), and NOBODY freaked out. Where were all the 'Fundies back in the '80's?
 
2014-09-17 08:21:30 PM  
TL, DR; Tyson misattributes his quotes, or doesn't get them 100% right, so Romney should be President.
 
2014-09-17 09:20:46 PM  
427 comments and not one of you dummies has come up with proof of any of those quotes by Tyson? Not one? After all that whining about how that writer was probably lying about Tyson lying, not a single person here has presented any evidence that Tyson's quotes are legitimate?

That is priceless. Absolutely priceless.
 
2014-09-17 09:22:28 PM  

turdferguson2k12: 427 comments and not one of you dummies has come up with proof of any of those quotes by Tyson? Not one? After all that whining about how that writer was probably lying about Tyson lying, not a single person here has presented any evidence that Tyson's quotes are legitimate?

That is priceless. Absolutely priceless.


I notice you haven't troubled yourself either...
 
2014-09-17 09:27:49 PM  
The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 09:39:01 PM  

DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]


What's Sean Davis's FARK handle, I wonder?
 
2014-09-17 09:42:36 PM  
Here's a headline from 2007:

http://www.openeducation.net/2007/09/24/half-of-all-children-are-belo w -average/
 
2014-09-17 09:44:23 PM  

DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]


I'd like to know what this guy's actual end goal here is. If NDGT got a quote wrong or paraphrased a political person incorrectly, then so be it. There's no debating it if it can be proven he got the quote(s) wrong. Like with everything else, if there's evidence proving someone got a quote wrong, then it's a non-debatable fact.

But why is this guy so "concerned" about some scientist's quote? Can we safely assume that he has an... agenda? Maybe he's trying to say that if NDFGT got politicians' quotes wrong, then his science is also wrong. I said it before upthread and it still seems just as true: It comes across like an effort to discredit a scientist based on what he said about non-scientific matters - as if his science could be incorrect because of his incorrect quotes of politicians. If so, he's conveniently leaving out any evidence to disprove NDGT's science, unlike the evidence he provided to disprove NDGT's quote(s). At any rate, I don't for a second think that this guy is "concerned" just about the politician quotes and nothing else.

Give it some time and this guy will come out and say that NDGT's science is all made up and that he doesn't "believe" in it (we all know how they love to think that stuff isn't true unless they "believe" in it). He may even go full crazy and say that physics and cosmology are lies, the Earth is 6,000 years old and all the stuff we need to know is in the Bible. It seems like that's where his agenda may be headed, but that's just my guess.
 
2014-09-17 09:46:13 PM  

menschenfresser: NDFGT


Pardon my French. I have no idea where that "F" came from. Freudian slip, maybe?
 
2014-09-17 10:08:08 PM  
All this thread/article is, is a way for ignorant self-righteous assholes to feel smarter than that uppity black science guy who just thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else.
 
2014-09-17 10:26:05 PM  
Jesus. This thread.
At first I thought, "Wow. Are farkers really that pathetic and stupid?" Then toward the middle it was pretty damned funny.

Snapper Carr: orclover: [i.imgur.com image 570x321]
[static4.fjcdn.com image 650x366]
[i.imgur.com image 600x342]

[i.imgur.com image 400x345]



And you win the thread. I fooking lol'd like a mutherfooker.
 
2014-09-17 10:26:47 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 615x345]


I don't really get fat scientists.
 
2014-09-17 10:52:28 PM  

DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]


LOL
Unless he gets his link greened, I'll never see it
I've never heard of the Federalist

Good Luck Sean!
 
2014-09-17 11:24:42 PM  

DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]


Hope my "Mr Face-needs-a-punch the sucky blog writer" line gets quoted.

I stayed up half the day working on that.
 
2014-09-17 11:42:30 PM  
gentoo-blog.deView Full Size
 
2014-09-18 12:05:48 AM  

tinyarena: DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]

LOL
Unless he gets his link greened, I'll never see it
I've never heard of the Federalist

Good Luck Sean!


You realize, of course, that now we have to read the Federalist and hope that this douchebag gives us a whiny, butthurt evisceration like he did Tyson. Seriously, this could be good. He's better than our worst trolls on the worst of their fist-f*cked days.
 
2014-09-18 12:36:29 AM  

Gyrfalcon: tinyarena: DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]

LOL
Unless he gets his link greened, I'll never see it
I've never heard of the Federalist

Good Luck Sean!

You realize, of course, that now we have to read the Federalist and hope that this douchebag gives us a whiny, butthurt evisceration like he did Tyson. Seriously, this could be good. He's better than our worst trolls on the worst of their fist-f*cked days.


Better than Bevets? I think not.
Anyway, why do we have to read it? I didn't even click on this link :)
Sorry Sean, It's rude talking about you right in front of your face.
 
2014-09-18 12:41:08 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]

What's Sean Davis's FARK handle, I wonder?


I doubt he has one, he seems like the kind of guy who just googles his own name 10-15 times a day
 
2014-09-18 12:52:33 AM  

Heliovdrake: Forbidden Doughnut: DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]

What's Sean Davis's FARK handle, I wonder?

I doubt he has one, he seems like the kind of guy who just googles his own name 10-15 times a day


"Is anyone talking about me?! I hope someone is talking about me!! Someone better be talking about me! It's been 30 minutes, why isn't anyone talking about MEEEEE!?!?!!"
 
2014-09-18 02:50:24 AM  

DisseminationMonkey: The author of this article gave you guys a shout out.

[img.fark.net image 746x392]


Oh man. Tweet him with advice on toothbrushing.
 
2014-09-18 03:14:37 AM  
It's possible that Tyson may have stumbled across this blog, which starts out by referencing a post Sept. 11 speech by George W. Bush and then segues into an article reprinted from a Christian blog. The point at which it changes to the reprinted article is a bit unclear without knowing the source material, especially considering that it not only quotes Bush but also paraphrases him.

Prior to September 11, 2001, we were a nation who felt protected, confident that terrorist attacks only happen "somewhere else." We thought our intelligence, defense technology and security information guarded us. To our dismay, we were wrong. Now we know that even Americans are not immune to the assaults of hatred from other countries.

Hours after the start of this disconcerting violence against us, President Bush faced the nation and encouraged all of us to seek comfort from "a power greater than any of us." He described his confidence in God, quoting from Psalm 23 in the Bible, "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me."


then a couple of paragraphs later, this time quoting directly from this Christian blog post by Marilyn Adamson:

Yet, God is not at the mercy of people, but the other way around. We are at His mercy, fortunately. This is God who created the universe with its uncountable stars, simply by speaking the words, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky."[8] This is God who says He "reigns over the nations."

Footnote [8]:

[8] Genesis 1:14

This is the only place where I personally have been able to find everything Tyson said in reference to this. Everything matches up, from the publishing date immediately following Sept, 11 to the quote about God making the stars to that being a reference to Genesis rather than Isaiah. Everything, that is, except for the fact that the George W. Bush quote ended a few paragraphs before. It's somewhat sh*tty blog posting in that there is no clear point at which the post stops talking about Bush and moves to reprinting Adamson. In short, I see Davis's point, and Tyson should probably stop using this particular anecdote, especially considering the huge amount of material that does back up his view that Dubya used religion to help promote an "us-vs-them" mentality.

Do not take this to mean I agree with Davis's sentiment; although I think he's got this part right (Bush didn't say that), he can't really argue against Tyson's thesis. Davis's argument hinges on disproving only one detail of supporting information that can be easily replaced with many others that can be cited. If he could, he would discredit Tyson's thesis; however, he cannot, so instead attempts to disprove one detail and then pretend that Tyson's whole argument rests on that detail.
 
2014-09-18 08:09:23 AM  

ox45tallboy: Davis's argument hinges on disproving only one detail of supporting information that can be easily replaced with many others that can be cited. If he could, he would discredit Tyson's thesis; however, he cannot, so instead attempts to disprove one detail and then pretend that Tyson's whole argument rests on that detail.


Props to you for getting to the bottom of this! Nobody else, including the idiot blogger, seems to have figured out where Tyson had gotten the story from, although it's telling that the idiot blogger spent the bulk of his post breathlessly screaming that Tyson's a liar who "made it all up out of thin air".

The idea that "you got something wrong, therefore your whole argument is discredited" is obviously wrong, but it seems to work well enough for people who lack critical thinking skills.
 
2014-09-18 08:31:19 AM  

ox45tallboy: It's possible that Tyson may have stumbled across this blog


That's a nice bit of research you did.
 
2014-09-18 10:20:48 AM  

GoldSpider: I wish good scientists like deGrasse-Tyson would stay out of politics.  It does them no credit to stretch the facts (or make them up) when there is plenty of actual facts to beat Republicans with.


There are very few scientists that meet the reasonably telegenic, personable, articulate, and able to deal with the public standards it seems.  Sad, true.  Sort of like engineers really.  No, not all engineers are socially maladjusted weirdballs - but holy hell sometimes it certainly seems like it when you see a lot of them together.

/also true for several other professions/groups - you use people that are reasonably apt at representing you when you find them, cause they are rare birds
 
2014-09-18 11:11:34 AM  

nekom: Ok he slightly misquoted a moran.  Doesn't matter, science is still real.


Thanks, genius.

"Doesn't matter, science is still real" needs to be etched in 6-inch letters into the side of some really important marble building, with your name next to it, so that posterity may come to know the wisdom of the Fark Progressive forevermore.

And just to make the engraving extra-special, they need to add "Amen.  Praise be to Neil deGrasse Tyson, peace be upon him."
 
2014-09-18 11:42:58 AM  

Phinn: Thanks, genius.

"Doesn't matter, science is still real" needs to be etched in 6-inch letters into the side of some really important marble building, with your name next to it, so that posterity may come to know the wisdom of the Fark Progressive forevermore.

And just to make the engraving extra-special, they need to add "Amen.  Praise be to Neil deGrasse Tyson, peace be upon him."


Yeah, some of these 'ends justify the means' folks don't even try to hide it much anymore.
 
2014-09-18 04:54:07 PM  

quatchi: Hope my "Mr Face-needs-a-punch the sucky blog writer" line gets quoted.

I stayed up half the day working on that.


Gyrfalcon: we have to read the Federalist and hope that this douchebag gives us a whiny, butthurt evisceration like he did Tyson. Seriously, this could be good.


Oh, it's good.
 
2014-09-18 05:25:58 PM  

local vagrant: Oh, it's good.


static.gamespot.comView Full Size
 
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2014-09-18 05:27:43 PM  
And furthermore. from the new article:

Mehta is right: if a right-wing conservative - if a skeptic of climate alarmism, for example - were accused of wholesale fabrication of evidence, he would have already been run out of town. gotten a gig on Fox News.

Fixed for accuracy.
 
2014-09-18 05:58:46 PM  

local vagrant: quatchi: Hope my "Mr Face-needs-a-punch the sucky blog writer" line gets quoted.

I stayed up half the day working on that.

Gyrfalcon: we have to read the Federalist and hope that this douchebag gives us a whiny, butthurt evisceration like he did Tyson. Seriously, this could be good.

Oh, it's good.


Talk about biased, he didn't even quote any FARKers who supported his dumb ass, and there were more than there should have been IMHO
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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