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  
•       •       •

8291 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2014 at 8:20 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



451 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-09-17 12:04:29 AM  
Great strategy: if you don't like the overarching ideas, just get extremely petty and nitpicky in a pathetic attempt to discredit the person delivering them.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

So even if he completely made up his allegories or anecdotes (which I highly doubt) so what? He is not presenting those as facts, just ways to illustrate his larger points - points which these people have no response to so they resort to just these kind of diversionary attacks.
 
2014-09-17 12:11:42 AM  
As opposed to the virtual Mt. Everest of bullsh*t conservatives make up?
 
2014-09-17 12:23:45 AM  
You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.
 
2014-09-17 12:25:59 AM  

joshiz: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson


Clearly you both have never heard of the placebo effect; it is directly correlated with belief.  This is the same dynamic that makes people think the article they've just read is journalism.
 
2014-09-17 1:27:47 AM  
This guy's butthurt is so bad that it makes my butt hurt. Who cares whether NDT got the details right or not?

Bush's belief about the intentions of his personal completely imaginary sky wizard don't really matter in the grand scheme, do they?

Reality wins, no matter what we think about it, which is probably NDT's point.
 
2014-09-17 1:31:41 AM  
The very punchable author's face:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 1:45:27 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


Where does the line to punch him form?
 
2014-09-17 1:55:50 AM  
I dozed off less than a quarter of the way through this whining.

Wake me up when any of it gains any relevance.
 
2014-09-17 1:56:28 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


I don't think he has a punchable face.  But he might be enjoyable to corrupt to sin, if one were so inclined.
 
2014-09-17 2:28:14 AM  

Ambivalence: ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]

I don't think he has a punchable face.  But he might be enjoyable to corrupt to sin, if one were so inclined.


Always inclined to sin, but that's not the face I'd choose. EIP.
 
2014-09-17 4:19:05 AM  
Another example of someone with zero understanding of science unwilling to learn that, but spout on about 9/11, God, and Bush like an expert.
 
2014-09-17 7:05:37 AM  

MrBallou: Ambivalence: ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]

I don't think he has a punchable face.  But he might be enjoyable to corrupt to sin, if one were so inclined.

Always inclined to sin, but that's not the face I'd choose. EIP.


Is this like a Craigslist thing?
 
2014-09-17 7:12:30 AM  
"Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL
 
2014-09-17 7:36:50 AM  

MrBallou: Who cares whether NDT got the details right or not?


I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

Does that have any bearing on the message? Not one whit.
 
2014-09-17 7:43:14 AM  
Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont but holy hell is this author butthurt about him. Go outside dude. I can't even imagine how much time it took to dig out all those references to put that pos series together
 
2014-09-17 7:55:17 AM  
Is this one of those "We get it, he's black" moments?
 
2014-09-17 8:02:44 AM  

ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.


And then he called the war on terror a crusade and farked up all that hard work trying to convince the Mid East that it wasn't all a Muslim vs Christians thing. Even when he did something right, he did something stupid and farked it all up.
 
2014-09-17 8:07:30 AM  
9/11 was over 13 years ago. Kids in college today were barely learning to read at the time.

I think it's time these weirdos moved on anyway.
 
2014-09-17 8:24:32 AM  

dookdookdook: "Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL


You mean Allah?

Many, if not most, of the star names are in Arabic.
 
2014-09-17 8:27:14 AM  

joshiz: Great strategy: if you don't like the overarching ideas, just get extremely petty and nitpicky in a pathetic attempt to discredit the person delivering them.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

So even if he completely made up his allegories or anecdotes (which I highly doubt) so what? He is not presenting those as facts, just ways to illustrate his larger points - points which these people have no response to so they resort to just these kind of diversionary attacks.


Really? That's the attitude we're going with?

"Who cares about the proof, I like what he says so it's OK."

SCIENCE!
 
2014-09-17 8:29:21 AM  
Article might have been newsworthy if it didn't spend most of it biatching and moaning that NDGT didn't get their mythology right. Sorry that he didn't waste his time becoming a waste of time scholar of imaginary things.

Constantly misrepresenting quotes is stupid though. What's his fark handle?
 
2014-09-17 8:29:48 AM  
Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....
 
2014-09-17 8:33:05 AM  

SundaesChild: Is this one of those "We get it, he's black" moments?


Actually, I think any of that is implied in the article....which is a (gradual) societal improvement, I think.
 
2014-09-17 8:33:06 AM  
Confederalist would be a more appropriate name, I think.
 
2014-09-17 8:33:56 AM  
Professional internet detective is on the case.
 
2014-09-17 8:35:33 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....


Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.
 
2014-09-17 8:37:55 AM  
All I got out of that article was "Wah! The scary black man is smarter than me!"
 
2014-09-17 8:38:05 AM  

dookdookdook: "Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL


All praise Annie Jump Cannon
 
2014-09-17 8:39:55 AM  

Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.


And just like that I'm looking for a Planescape wikia and holy shiat there's a kickstarter for a sort-of sequel to Torment.
 
2014-09-17 8:40:32 AM  
Don't worry, he will recant on his deathbed.
 
2014-09-17 8:40:32 AM  
I have been making crap up for years.  You go Neil!
 
2014-09-17 8:40:53 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )


If your hypothetical fundie said something like "As the great Voltaire once said, 'These are the times that try men's souls'" you'd have the right to get upset.  Because it's wrong.
I like Tyson, but if he said something incorrect he deserves to be called out on it.
 
2014-09-17 8:41:03 AM  

dookdookdook: "Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL

ahem...I think you meant Shia LaBeouf

 
2014-09-17 8:41:21 AM  
So this guys arguement is, "NGT quoted some people; I couldn't find the quotes on the internet, therefore NGT is lying about the quotes."

Additionally, he says that NGT used the rather common joke of "half of all students are below average" as proof thag NGT doesn't understand statistics.

I tried going into some of his links to see his proof; I gave up after the third link that didn't have any.
 
2014-09-17 8:42:26 AM  

give me doughnuts: All I got out of that article was "Wah! The scary black man is smarter than me!"


that's because you are silly.

I noticed stubby couldn't be bothered to think of a creative headline him/herself
 
2014-09-17 8:43:11 AM  

mgshamster: So this guys arguement is, "NGT quoted some people; I couldn't find the quotes on the internet, therefore NGT is lying about the quotes."

Additionally, he says that NGT used the rather common joke of "half of all students are below average" as proof thag NGT doesn't understand statistics.

I tried going into some of his links to see his proof; I gave up after the third link that didn't have any.


Did you check his links for "truthiness" and "gut feelings"?
 
2014-09-17 8:43:26 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: As opposed to the virtual Mt. Everest of bullsh*t conservatives make up?


finger pointer
 
2014-09-17 8:43:42 AM  
Haha, I clicked through to one of his other complaint articles on NGT (he has a whole series).

But anyway, he's arguing the definition of average, and he actually uses the words: "BUT NOT ALL DISTRIBUTIONS".

Dude is white nighting statistics.
 
2014-09-17 8:43:57 AM  

albatros183: dookdookdook: "Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL

All praise Annie Jump Cannon


[this.jpg]

Though, she more organized than named them.
 
2014-09-17 8:44:57 AM  
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.
 
2014-09-17 8:45:20 AM  
The guy is technically right.  And you know what that means...
 
2014-09-17 8:45:48 AM  

Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.


Planescape: Torment is farking awesome.

We used to play a bunch of spelljammers when I was a kid.  That was a pretty sweet campaign setting as well.
 
2014-09-17 8:45:59 AM  
Poster boy for terminal right-wing vaginitis Sean Davis was an economic policy adviser to Governor Rick Perry.

How many apoplectic blog posts do you suppose he's written about all the times his pal Perry's been wrong?
 
2014-09-17 8:46:44 AM  

NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont


...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?
 
2014-09-17 8:47:23 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 8:47:28 AM  
He's thinks he's so smart, but this girl that friendzoned me tweeted and W was way whiter than Neil Degrasse 0bama and also Jesus told fewer lies.
 
2014-09-17 8:47:57 AM  
Ok he slightly misquoted a moran.  Doesn't matter, science is still real.
 
2014-09-17 8:49:04 AM  

nmrsnr: MrBallou: Who cares whether NDT got the details right or not?

I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

Does that have any bearing on the message? Not one whit.


I don't think that this that big of deal but I do agree that as a scientist you would think that he would have done better at getting the facts / details  correct?
 
2014-09-17 8:49:36 AM  

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


That is why I just go with They Might Be Giants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw
 
2014-09-17 8:49:46 AM  

Karac: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

And just like that I'm looking for a Planescape wikia and holy shiat there's a kickstarter for a sort-of sequel to Torment.


Yeah.  It's too bad that the setting seems to be more of a standard science magic fantasy, rather than the straight absurdity of Planescape.  I think they'll do a good job of it, but I don't think it will be quite as memorable.

There's also a Baldur's Gate type game coming out too.   Pillars of Eternity. It's being developed by Obsidian.
 
2014-09-17 8:50:25 AM  
Remember in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon tells the joke about the stewardess forgetting the coffee and Robin Williams calls him out for never having been on a plane?  This guy wrote a whole article based on that sort of outrage.
 
2014-09-17 8:51:52 AM  
It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.
 
2014-09-17 8:51:58 AM  

Bartman66: nmrsnr: MrBallou: Who cares whether NDT got the details right or not?

I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

Does that have any bearing on the message? Not one whit.

I don't think that this that big of deal but I do agree that as a scientist you would think that he would have done better at getting the facts / details  correct?


I didn't go too in depth with the article, but it looked like the author was quoting mining Tyson while he was giving an informal talk.  It's pretty easy to get things a little wrong in that situation. In an article or a formal talk, yeah it's definitely valid criticism.
 
2014-09-17 8:52:48 AM  

kbronsito: ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.

And then he called the war on terror a crusade and farked up all that hard work trying to convince the Mid East that it wasn't all a Muslim vs Christians thing. Even when he did something right, he did something stupid and farked it all up.


I cringed when I heard him say crusade.  He was blowing an Islamic dog whistle and seemed clueless about it.
 
2014-09-17 8:54:24 AM  

Jackson Herring: i.imgur.com


Best. Fark. Poster. Ever.

/ you just killed me
 
2014-09-17 8:55:30 AM  

born_yesterday: mgshamster: So this guys arguement is, "NGT quoted some people; I couldn't find the quotes on the internet, therefore NGT is lying about the quotes."

Additionally, he says that NGT used the rather common joke of "half of all students are below average" as proof thag NGT doesn't understand statistics.

I tried going into some of his links to see his proof; I gave up after the third link that didn't have any.

Did you check his links for "truthiness" and "gut feelings"?


DAMNIT! I knew I forgot something!
 
2014-09-17 8:55:47 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Remember in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon tells the joke about the stewardess forgetting the coffee and Robin Williams calls him out for never having been on a plane?  This guy wrote a whole article based on that sort of outrage.


And what was the end result of that?  Robin Williams killed himself.
 
2014-09-17 8:56:12 AM  

bestie1: I guess they were just boring


As boring as a Fark troll? That boring?
 
2014-09-17 8:56:45 AM  

IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?


Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick
 
2014-09-17 8:57:06 AM  

Bartman66: nmrsnr: MrBallou: Who cares whether NDT got the details right or not?

I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

Does that have any bearing on the message? Not one whit.

I don't think that this that big of deal but I do agree that as a scientist you would think that he would have done better at getting the facts / details  correct?


That is a good point. ( cite one's references correctly, or don't use them at all.)
 
2014-09-17 8:57:24 AM  

dittybopper: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Remember in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon tells the joke about the stewardess forgetting the coffee and Robin Williams calls him out for never having been on a plane?  This guy wrote a whole article based on that sort of outrage.

And what was the end result of that?  Robin Williams killed himself.


Baaaam nsfw language
 
2014-09-17 8:57:54 AM  
troycitydesign.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 8:58:24 AM  

Karac: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

And just like that I'm looking for a Planescape wikia and holy shiat there's a kickstarter for a sort-of sequel to Torment.


I own almost every planescape book (including all the box sets); include the three fiction novels.

Still missing several of the 20 page adventure books and two campaign books.

It's a fantastic campaign setting. Shame they ditched it going into 3e and beyond.
 
2014-09-17 8:59:00 AM  

bestie1: Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes? Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.


Because nobody with a shiatty blog wrote rambling, semi-coherent, butthurt ripostes about every little thing they ever said because the blog writer didn't like their politics.

But somehow I don't find myself the least bit surprised that you can't even hold yourself to your own standards over the course of one lousy paragraph.
 
2014-09-17 8:59:23 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 8:59:54 AM  
 We've also established that the exact quote he used to bash members of congress as being stupid also doesn't exist.


Well in that case, Mr. punchable author has convinced me that many (R) members of congress don't routinely say things revealing how stupid/wilfully ignorant of science they are.
 
2014-09-17 9:02:50 AM  

bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people. The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.


I don't think that anyone who likes NDGT thinks of him as a Jesus figure, but thanks for playing the christian conservative projection game.
 
2014-09-17 9:03:00 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


Oh hell, that is at least a 1.2 on the Tsoukalos scale of face-punchability.
 
2014-09-17 9:03:19 AM  
thefederalist.comView Full Size


31.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 9:04:10 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: There's also a Baldur's Gate type game coming out too.   Pillars of Eternity. It's being developed by Obsidian.


*drool*

/ hope the writing/character development is at the same level as Planescape:Torment
 
2014-09-17 9:04:49 AM  

bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.


He is a semi decent public speaker, who is atheist, and has a lot of visibility. The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me, he knows so much better than everyone else and he agrees with me so I'm smart too!' Is absurd
 
2014-09-17 9:06:02 AM  

Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.


I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance
 
2014-09-17 9:08:36 AM  
He hates Pluto.
 
2014-09-17 9:08:37 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

Obviously this man was replaced by a cabbage by the Illuminati.
 
2014-09-17 9:08:47 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 9:08:58 AM  

NickelP: The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me


They should have a swordfight with the sh*tty right-wing bloggers who get hardons when they catch one of those damn liberal scientists making a trivial mistake.

/ liking penises is ok!
 
2014-09-17 9:11:51 AM  

LucklessWonder: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance


I loved reading the birthright campaign setting; didn't enjoy playing it that much. Dragonlance always looked like it would be fun, but I never read any of the stuff because all my gamer friend growing up hated it. The only thing I ever read on it was when a planescape adventure delved into the dragonlance world.
 
2014-09-17 9:12:05 AM  
He's either a smoker or doesn't quite brush his teeth every day.
 
2014-09-17 9:12:10 AM  
You know, I always thought that Conservatives just had a filter when perceiving realty (called the Bible), but now I think they are seeing reality in a totally different way than the rest of us.  Up is down, black is white, and toothpaste makes a swell cocktail mixture.. they have to be brain damaged.
 
2014-09-17 9:12:54 AM  
FTFA:

In journalism, this would get you fired.


BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!  Yes, journalism in America has such high standards and journalists always suffer horrendous consequences for peddling unadulterated bullshiat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/lara-logan-cbs-news-first-a pp earance_n_5498630.html
 
2014-09-17 9:14:10 AM  

largedon: [thefederalist.com image 390x412]

[31.media.tumblr.com image 499x397]


Ah, the British version of "Hingle McKringleberry." I actually haven't seen that particular Python sketch.
 
2014-09-17 9:14:13 AM  
ITT: A lot of whiny but-thurt that a hero was called out for being full of shiat.
 
2014-09-17 9:14:30 AM  

Chummer45: FTFA:

In journalism, this would get you fired.


BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!  Yes, journalism in America has such high standards and journalists always suffer horrendous consequences for peddling unadulterated bullshiat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/lara-logan-cbs-news-first-a pp earance_n_5498630.html


To his defense, maybe he has first hand experience, and that's why he's now writing a blog.
 
2014-09-17 9:15:10 AM  

s2s2s2: ITT: A lot of whiny but-thurt that a hero was called out for being full of shiat.


Oh and don't forget the sh*tty trolling!

/ you're late to that party
 
2014-09-17 9:15:27 AM  

s2s2s2: ITT: A lot of whiny but-thurt that a hero was called out for being full of shiat.


I see a lot of discussion about D&D. Are you perhaps reading a different thread?
 
2014-09-17 9:15:30 AM  

s2s2s2: ITT: A lot of whiny but-thurt that a hero was called out for being full of shiat.


I don't know what a but-thurt is, but please wash it first before you start waving it around.
 
2014-09-17 9:15:30 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


It reminds me of a more perverted version of the character in Con Air played by Steve Buscemi.
 
2014-09-17 9:16:43 AM  
I thought the cool thing about scientists is that they will gladly admit when they are wrong. Does that only apply to being wrong about science?
 
2014-09-17 9:17:40 AM  
Butt hurt is what I see on this thread.
 
2014-09-17 9:17:52 AM  

s2s2s2: I thought the cool thing about scientists is that they will gladly admit when they are wrong. Does that only apply to being wrong about science?


I like your style. You are going to get bites
 
2014-09-17 9:17:54 AM  

s2s2s2: I thought

Now

who's making things up?
 
2014-09-17 9:17:54 AM  

NickelP: bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.

He is a semi decent public speaker, who is atheist, and has a lot of visibility. The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me, he knows so much better than everyone else and he agrees with me so I'm smart too!' Is absurd



Yeah I don't get it either.  I mean, why can't people just be content listening to the science experts we already have on TV, such as:

static.squarespace.comView Full Size


theblaze.comView Full Size


And don't forget

media.salon.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 9:18:41 AM  
So, lies are ok if people we like tell them?  That's what I'm getting from most of the comments here.
 
2014-09-17 9:18:50 AM  

mgshamster: Chummer45: FTFA:

In journalism, this would get you fired.


BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!  Yes, journalism in America has such high standards and journalists always suffer horrendous consequences for peddling unadulterated bullshiat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/lara-logan-cbs-news-first-a pp earance_n_5498630.html

To his defense, maybe he has first hand experience, and that's why he's now writing a blog.



I find it hard to believe that a right wing derper would have been fired because he didn't sufficiently fact check his derp.
 
2014-09-17 9:19:03 AM  

nmrsnr: I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.


You do realize that NDT doesn't purport to be a historian or a literary expert, right?  He's a  scientist, his ad-hoc conversational stories he tells to make rhetorical points aren't things he  represents as being 100% rigorous in every detail without fail.

Do you hold everyone in the entire universe responsible for memorizing every quote word-perfect with no paraphrasing?  Because NDT ain't any kind of expert in that regard, he's on the same standards as the average guy.
 
2014-09-17 9:19:11 AM  
I thought "Scientists" like TNG liked facts.
 
2014-09-17 9:19:19 AM  

Wooly Bully: Oh and don't forget the sh*tty trolling!


I looked at the first few posts. shiatty trolling is what NDT is being called out on.

qorkfiend: I see a lot of discussion about D&D. Are you perhaps reading a different thread?


I didn't get too deep before pulling out my boobies.

born_yesterday: I don't know what a but-thurt is, but please wash it first before you start waving it around.


It's how I feel when I accidentally the "-".
 
2014-09-17 9:20:20 AM  

NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick


It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.
 
2014-09-17 9:21:30 AM  

Chummer45: NickelP: bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.

He is a semi decent public speaker, who is atheist, and has a lot of visibility. The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me, he knows so much better than everyone else and he agrees with me so I'm smart too!' Is absurd


Yeah I don't get it either.  I mean, why can't people just be content listening to the science experts we already have on TV, such as:

[static.squarespace.com image 850x478]

[www.theblaze.com image 344x344]

And don't forget

[media.salon.com image 750x500]


Try watching pbs, nat geographic, (and yes even history and discovery). If you are watching fox news for science reasons maybe the problem is you and not them. Netflix also has tons of great science shows that talk about stars and stuff without devoting half the time to biatching about the speakers personal platform.
 
2014-09-17 9:21:33 AM  

bestie1: I thought "Scientists" like TNG liked facts.


You're trying so hard. Go get 'em, Tiger!
 
2014-09-17 9:21:41 AM  

born_yesterday: who's making things up?


Fark's a fast moving place, bub. Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut. I'm reminded of the time NDT said, "If you want to Fark a chicken, make sure it's under the stars, so you can feel so insignificant that it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, that you are farking a chicken."

He said this as a way of distancing himself from regular, daytime-behind-the-barn chicken farkers.
 
2014-09-17 9:22:06 AM  
Does anyone really think Mr. CBT here gives a flying f*ck about accuracy and isn't just trying to say "gotcha" to those stupid libs and their stupid science?

Anyone?
 
2014-09-17 9:22:15 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Do you hold everyone in the entire universe responsible for memorizing every quote word-perfect with no paraphrasing? Because NDT ain't any kind of expert in that regard, he's on the same standards as the average guy.


No? But in a presentation, with quotes, where the speaker had time to prepare, and deliberately chose the sources they would use, yes, I expect a certain level of general academic rigor, like citing of sources, and those sources being real.

Or do you not think the "not meant to be a factual statement" Congressman was a-ok because he is neither a journalist nor a scientist?

/I just got trolled, didn't I?
 
2014-09-17 9:23:38 AM  

born_yesterday: bestie1: I thought "Scientists" like TNG liked facts.

You're trying so hard. Go get 'em, Tiger!


You're loosing Tiger.  He makes shiat up and claims to be a scientist and you guys throw out George Will.  Other then baseball I missed where George Will claimed to know anything outside politics.  Keep that echo chamber ringing!
 
2014-09-17 9:24:28 AM  
NDGT shouldn't make up shiat that will undermine his credibility but this line made me LOL.

FTFA:  Add embarrassing biblical illiteracy to Tyson's list of accomplishments on his CV.

Why is that embarrassing?  It's 2014, the bible is far from relevant or required knowledge.
 
2014-09-17 9:24:35 AM  

Jim_Callahan: nmrsnr: I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

You do realize that NDT doesn't purport to be a historian or a literary expert, right?  He's a  scientist, his ad-hoc conversational stories he tells to make rhetorical points aren't things he  represents as being 100% rigorous in every detail without fail.

Do you hold everyone in the entire universe responsible for memorizing every quote word-perfect with no paraphrasing?  Because NDT ain't any kind of expert in that regard, he's on the same standards as the average guy.



The thing I find most amusing about this is that the right is nitpicking NDGT, while completely ignoring the legion of shiat peddlers in the right wing media who blatantly lie and distort to prop up their political ideology, while consistently being wrong about pretty much everything.

So this dumbass writes an entire article concern trolling about how NDGT may not be credible because he got a few quotes wrong, but then in all likelihood Mr. Dumbass routinely turns to propaganda outlets like brietbart, drudge report, and fox for his news.
 
2014-09-17 9:25:58 AM  

mgshamster: LucklessWonder: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance

I loved reading the birthright campaign setting; didn't enjoy playing it that much. Dragonlance always looked like it would be fun, but I never read any of the stuff because all my gamer friend growing up hated it. The only thing I ever read on it was when a planescape adventure delved into the dragonlance world.


I never had any gamer friends growing up, so I was stuck with just the books and computer games.
My favorite games were the really old TSR gold box series, although the last Dragonlance one changed up the UI a pretty good bit (IIRC making it mouse-only) and so I only played it through the first fight.

I was mainly a Forgotten Realms geek.  Dragonlance got too mixed up in time travel and universe shifting - it's like they looked at DC's eternal Crisis on However-many Earths massive retcons and decided that was the way to go.  Greyhawk was fairly interesting, but it had mostly died out by the time I got around to it - although I remember loving the first Gord book by Gygax.

Now, the Dark Sun books - those were excellent.  Good stories, no massive inconsistencies between authors, and a really inventive settings.  The Ravenlofts also had some good moments.
 
2014-09-17 9:26:05 AM  
So all of science is wrong then? Cool, I'm going to forget about the stupid law of gravity and fly to work this morning
 
2014-09-17 9:26:44 AM  

derpes_simplex: Clearly you both have never heard of the placebo effect; it is directly correlated with belief. This is the same dynamic that makes people think the article they've just read is journalism.


Interestingly, scientists are beginning to unpick the mechanisms behind the placebo effect. It turns out that people are not merely "perceiving" or reporting lower pain; their brains are actually producing the hormones associated with pain reduction.

There's also an inverse-placebo effect where people who believe that something will hurt more than it does generate the appropriate pain/stress hormones.

The brain is an amazing organ; in fact, I think it's my second-favorite organ.
 
2014-09-17 9:26:57 AM  

Elegy: joshiz: Great strategy: if you don't like the overarching ideas, just get extremely petty and nitpicky in a pathetic attempt to discredit the person delivering them.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

So even if he completely made up his allegories or anecdotes (which I highly doubt) so what? He is not presenting those as facts, just ways to illustrate his larger points - points which these people have no response to so they resort to just these kind of diversionary attacks.

Really? That's the attitude we're going with?

"Who cares about the proof, I like what he says so it's OK."

SCIENCE!


No, the attitude we're going with is "seeing the forest for the trees".  Mr. Degrasse-Tyson misquoted Bush. BFD. The quote was really not the focus of the speech.  It's stupid nitpicky bullshiat designed to distract from the matter at hand.

It's like when people get all huffy and say "Well, Sarah Palin never actually said she could see Russia from her house."  No shiat, Sherlock.  She said that living in a state that's close to Russia made her a foreign policy expert.  The "I can see Russia from my house!" line was meant to mock her for that.
 
2014-09-17 9:26:59 AM  
If he got a few quotes wrong, he must be wrong about everything.  Therefore Jesus.
 
2014-09-17 9:27:20 AM  
All I know is, this arrogant little f-stick somehow got greenlit on fark the same news cycle as he had a prominent article voted up on reddit

Bet there's money behind his trolling. Bet ya.


And kudos to the fark asswit for greenlighting it. Lords work, you contard.
 
2014-09-17 9:28:15 AM  
The issue isn't biblical literacy.  It's making up quotes and sourcing them to researchable sources.  If your going to make shiat up at least pick something people can't bing.  This latest quote is so egregious that it blows my mind.
 
2014-09-17 9:28:29 AM  

Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.



NDGT is only "political" in the sense that someone has to push back against the hordes of shiat peddlers on the right that are out there constantly trying to make it appear that things like evolution and climate change are matters of serious dispute in the scientific community.

I love how the right wing media criticizes NDGT as "political," then turns around and spews nonsense about how scientists are an international cabal fabricating things like climate change just to get more grant money.  The only reason the right wing resorts to that kind of bullshiat is to provide an excuse to justify the right wing's insanely irresponsible political position that we shouldn't do anything to address or mitigate climate change.
 
2014-09-17 9:29:10 AM  

mgshamster: LucklessWonder: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance

I loved reading the birthright campaign setting; didn't enjoy playing it that much. Dragonlance always looked like it would be fun, but I never read any of the stuff because all my gamer friend growing up hated it. The only thing I ever read on it was when a planescape adventure delved into the dragonlance world.


Dragonlance was seriously the best.  I loved those books, and I loved gaming in that setting.
 
2014-09-17 9:29:28 AM  

Bermuda59: So all of science is wrong then? Cool, I'm going to forget about the stupid law of gravity and fly to work this morning


What Science?
 
2014-09-17 9:30:11 AM  

Wooly Bully: Does anyone really think Mr. CBT here gives a flying f*ck about accuracy and isn't just trying to say "gotcha" to those stupid libs and their stupid science?

Anyone?


STICKING IT TO THE LIBS

Since 1988, The ONLY Thing That Matters.


/made a pic of it, but it's on my machine at home
 
2014-09-17 9:30:41 AM  

Generation_D: trolling


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 9:31:05 AM  

Elegy: Really? That's the attitude we're going with?

"Who cares about the proof, I like what he says so it's OK."

SCIENCE!


To use the scientific method would mean that Sean Davis would have to listen to every Bush speech after 9/11 to provide evidence that NdGT's anecdote was false. Instead, he just found another later Bush speech where the quote was different and used that as "evidence".

I care about the proof which in this case means excluding all other Bush speeches after 9/11. That was not done at all.
 
2014-09-17 9:31:24 AM  

s2s2s2: Fark's a fast moving place, bub. Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut. I'm reminded of the time NDT said, "If you want to Fark a chicken, make sure it's under the stars, so you can feel so insignificant that it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, that you are farking a chicken."

He said this as a way of distancing himself from regular, daytime-behind-the-barn chicken farkers.


If the duct tape holding the chicken together is the only thing keeping it alive, does it still really qualify as a chicken?

Makes u think.
 
2014-09-17 9:31:31 AM  

Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.


Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.
 
2014-09-17 9:31:50 AM  

bestie1: born_yesterday: bestie1: I thought "Scientists" like TNG liked facts.

You're trying so hard. Go get 'em, Tiger!

You're loosing Tiger.  He makes shiat up and claims to be a scientist and you guys throw out George Will.  Other then baseball I missed where George Will claimed to know anything outside politics. Keep that echo chamber ringing!


Yeah, he clearly avoids wading into climate science: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html
 
2014-09-17 9:32:05 AM  
What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.
 
2014-09-17 9:33:23 AM  

HeartBurnKid: mgshamster: LucklessWonder: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance

I loved reading the birthright campaign setting; didn't enjoy playing it that much. Dragonlance always looked like it would be fun, but I never read any of the stuff because all my gamer friend growing up hated it. The only thing I ever read on it was when a planescape adventure delved into the dragonlance world.

Dragonlance was seriously the best.  I loved those books, and I loved gaming in that setting.


You sound like a fan of Kender then... get your hands out of my pouches!
 
2014-09-17 9:33:27 AM  
W seemed to be always on script, so yeah, it doesn't seem likely he'd use such a phrase in a speech.
 
2014-09-17 9:33:48 AM  

bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.



Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT
 
2014-09-17 9:34:15 AM  

nmrsnr: albatros183: dookdookdook: "Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL

All praise Annie Jump Cannon

[this.jpg]

Though, she more organized than named them.


Well the other option is Messier and I have always preferred goddesses anyway
 
2014-09-17 9:35:33 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Planescape: Torment is farking awesome.


I'd still kill for a sequel to that game.  No, not a "spiritual" sequel, a straight up followup!

As for the article:
My God.  How can anyone write that and not say to themselves, "This is some weak assed shiat" at the end?
 
2014-09-17 9:36:02 AM  

Chummer45: Please


please, please keep responding to the super sincere poster who is referring for some reason to a star trek series
 
2014-09-17 9:36:21 AM  
We get it. He's black.

/does Bill Nye get this kind of shiat?
 
2014-09-17 9:36:46 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 9:36:51 AM  

Jim_Callahan: nmrsnr: I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

You do realize that NDT doesn't purport to be a historian or a literary expert, right?  He's a  scientist, his ad-hoc conversational stories he tells to make rhetorical points aren't things he  represents as being 100% rigorous in every detail without fail.

Do you hold everyone in the entire universe responsible for memorizing every quote word-perfect with no paraphrasing?  Because NDT ain't any kind of expert in that regard, he's on the same standards as the average guy.


This is the internet, the answer to that question is YES! sort of like when being asked if you are a god.
 
2014-09-17 9:37:02 AM  

HeartBurnKid: mgshamster: LucklessWonder: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance

I loved reading the birthright campaign setting; didn't enjoy playing it that much. Dragonlance always looked like it would be fun, but I never read any of the stuff because all my gamer friend growing up hated it. The only thing I ever read on it was when a planescape adventure delved into the dragonlance world.

Dragonlance was seriously the best.  I loved those books, and I loved gaming in that setting.


I want to get back into regular gaming. My current group meets every other week, with half the group cancelling even then, so the rest of us end up throwing something on the BBQ and watching a movie.
 
2014-09-17 9:37:45 AM  

NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.

Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.


Did we watch the same show?  There were like four scenes in the entire series that you could construe as critical of religion- only if that means that "critiquing" religion is saying that being non-religious is a plausible alternative.  Or stating the simple fact that the catholic church persecuted scientists.  He could have even said that the church continues to persecute scientists, and would have had every right to, but didn't.

I'm religious myself and there was absolutely nothing offensive to me about the presentation.  And it was far more focused on all of the things you wanted than what sounds like one scene you took out of context.
 
2014-09-17 9:38:05 AM  

Egoy3k: NDGT shouldn't make up shiat that will undermine his credibility but this line made me LOL.

FTFA:  Add embarrassing biblical illiteracy to Tyson's list of accomplishments on his CV.

Why is that embarrassing?  It's 2014, the bible is far from relevant or required knowledge.



It's such a common tactic on the right - "you're not credible because you don't know about shiat that I personally am obsessed with!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs
 
2014-09-17 9:38:31 AM  

Karac: mgshamster: LucklessWonder: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

I prefer Birthright and (whispers) DragonLance

I loved reading the birthright campaign setting; didn't enjoy playing it that much. Dragonlance always looked like it would be fun, but I never read any of the stuff because all my gamer friend growing up hated it. The only thing I ever read on it was when a planescape adventure delved into the dragonlance world.

I never had any gamer friends growing up, so I was stuck with just the books and computer games.
My favorite games were the really old TSR gold box series, although the last Dragonlance one changed up the UI a pretty good bit (IIRC making it mouse-only) and so I only played it through the first fight.

I was mainly a Forgotten Realms geek.  Dragonlance got too mixed up in time travel and universe shifting - it's like they looked at DC's eternal Crisis on However-many Earths massive retcons and decided that was the way to go.  Greyhawk was fairly interesting, but it had mostly died out by the time I got around to it - although I remember loving the first Gord book by Gygax.

Now, the Dark Sun books - those were excellent.  Good stories, no massive inconsistencies between authors, and a really inventive settings.  The Ravenlofts also had some good moments.


I did enjoy a lot of the old computer games. Still do, as a matter of fact. And I completely agree about darksun and ravenloft!
 
2014-09-17 9:38:38 AM  

Chummer45: bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT


The question remains open.  What new scientific work has TNG ever presented to show his creds.  Don't change the subject.
 
2014-09-17 9:42:17 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]



If you waved that guy's picture over Bruce Lee's grave, Bruce Lee's right fist would suddenly come back to life.
 
2014-09-17 9:42:18 AM  

Jack Harper: NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.

Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.

Did we watch th ...



The problem that right wingers have with the show's discussion of religion is that it gave an accurate history lesson about how many religions have historically been fearful of scientific discovery and have used religious dogma to suppress science throughout history.

The politically oriented christian conservatives don't like it when you point out that their efforts to have us suppress or ignore science today and substitute it with their religious ideas is the same kind of shiat.
 
2014-09-17 9:42:30 AM  

bestie1: Chummer45: bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT

The question remains open.  What new scientific work has TNG ever presented to show his creds.  Don't change the subject.


Serious question. Why do you refer to  Neil  DeGrasse  Tyson as  TNG?
 
2014-09-17 9:43:38 AM  

NickelP: bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.

He is a semi decent public speaker, who is atheist, and has a lot of visibility. The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me, he knows so much better than everyone else and he agrees with me so I'm smart too!' Is absurd


Basically everyone that only exists in your head.
 
2014-09-17 9:45:32 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size

static4.fjcdn.comView Full Size

i.imgur.comView Full Size


Neil is oviously a farking quack that lives off of stupid liberals believing everything he says. How can you not see that?
 
2014-09-17 9:45:38 AM  

bestie1: If your going to make shiat up at least pick something people can't bing.


+1 Funny
 
2014-09-17 9:45:39 AM  
Wait... that really whiney dude from Eureka is trying to be a journalist now?

/I guess you gotta work...
 
2014-09-17 9:46:06 AM  
At this point I don't have a problem with *any* slandering of GWB. Enough falsehoods were generated by his administration over those 8 years to keep him in slander for the rest of his natural life.

\come on Neil, keep it straight please, we count on you to do so
\\that said, no tomato is too ripe to be thrown at GWB
 
2014-09-17 9:46:18 AM  
Professor Frink,
Professor Frink,
He makes you laugh,
He makes you think,
He likes to run,
and then the thing
with the... person.
 
2014-09-17 9:46:22 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Bartman66: nmrsnr: MrBallou: Who cares whether NDT got the details right or not?

I kind of do. It's lazy attribution to say "newspaper headline" and a scientist should cite his sources better.

Does that have any bearing on the message? Not one whit.

I don't think that this that big of deal but I do agree that as a scientist you would think that he would have done better at getting the facts / details  correct?

I didn't go too in depth with the article, but it looked like the author was quoting mining Tyson while he was giving an informal talk.  It's pretty easy to get things a little wrong in that situation. In an article or a formal talk, yeah it's definitely valid criticism.


Exactly... we got the gist of it and I can understand it happening but too have it happen many times is kind of foolish especially when one is so INSANELY intelligent as he is. IT is political.. If someone who is more right wing leaning said this it would be brought up on the dem sites and farker's etc...
In today's age of putting everything under a microscope so you can find fault while losing the overall message this is the norm. Sadly enough.
 
2014-09-17 9:46:31 AM  
Hmmmm....
Sean Davis, Co-Founder
Sean Davis is a co-founder of The Federalist and also serves as COO of Media Trackers, a non-profit government watchdog. He previously worked as an economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn.

nope, nope, nope. don't trust a god damn thing he says.
 
2014-09-17 9:49:15 AM  
Shut up and science
 
2014-09-17 9:49:35 AM  
Author quote: "Add embarrassing biblical illiteracy to Tyson's list of accomplishments on his CV."

1. I think the word this moron author is looking for is incomprehension
2. Not comprehending the Bible is similar to not comprehending your drunk uncle at a holiday part. Nothing of value is lost.

Are you really going to base your arguments against Tyson on the Bible?

Also.....

Author's quote: "First off, Bush never uttered the quote attributed to him by Tyson. He did, however, include a separate but similar phrase in a February 2003 speech immediately following the Columbia space shuttle disaster:

So he got the timing wrong and maybe a few minor details attacking the president? OH NOES

I'll have to look at the rest of the stuff after work, but this looks like a poorly written and extremely nitpicky hit piece.

It's too bad he couldn't look at every single member of Congress this hard.
 
2014-09-17 9:49:41 AM  

Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.


You never played RIFTs, I take it?
 
2014-09-17 9:49:51 AM  

Saiga410: Shut up and science


If he doesn't say anything, how is he supposed to educate people about science? That's literally his job.
 
2014-09-17 9:49:59 AM  
black scienceman: the next generation
 
2014-09-17 9:50:42 AM  

bestie1: Chummer45: bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT

The question remains open.  What new scientific work has TNG ever presented to show his creds.  Don't change the subject.


I know you're a troll, but his CV is online...
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae
 
2014-09-17 9:50:47 AM  

mainstreet62: Are you really going to base your arguments against Tyson on the Bible?


his CV is super liar man. it's an ironic claim for him to make against Black, Science MAAAaaaaan. (said like powdered toast man).
 
2014-09-17 9:52:17 AM  

Jackson Herring: black scienceman: the next generation


Well now I have a new alt
 
2014-09-17 9:53:50 AM  
mgshamster:

I did enjoy a lot of the old computer games. Still do, as a matter of fact. And I completely agree about darksun and ravenloft!

Only ever read the 3/3.5E Ravenloft Campaign Setting, where Wizards had licensed it out to (I think) White Wolf. I liked the concept of Dreadlords and that they could be redeemed if they only saw and atoned for the error of their ways, and the irony being that if they were capable of that introspection they wouldn't be Dreadlords in the first place.

I think one of them was originally Lord Soth from DragonLance but the license didn't include that setting, so it was a serial numbers filed off version.

/Man I need to get into gaming again
//Any farkers willing to DM/GM a group via some form of online medium so that I can roll up a character or two?
///Was GM last few campaigns and want to be a PC again
 
2014-09-17 9:54:28 AM  
grey font on black background man
 
2014-09-17 9:54:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Saiga410: Shut up and science

If he doesn't say anything, how is he supposed to educate people about science? That's literally his job.


There is always morse code or semaphore.
 
2014-09-17 9:55:16 AM  

Jackson Herring: black scienceman: the next generation


shirtoid.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 9:55:36 AM  
I had never heard of that site.  So I gave them a page view and checked it out.  Hell, even read some of the comments for further entertainment.  I'm way past the point where that level of stupidity either surprised or saddened me, but it does still make me chuckle.  I also continue to wonder what it feels like to be that stupid, to go through life where your average level of cognition is barely into the functional range.
 
2014-09-17 9:56:29 AM  
Geordi L. Forge, racially black
 
2014-09-17 9:56:37 AM  

bestie1: Chummer45: bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT

The question remains open.  What new scientific work has TNG ever presented to show his creds.  Don't change the subject.


NDGT has a PhD.  A PhD requires a thesis that adds to the field.  That's pretty much what a PhD means... it means "you have contributed something new to the field".
 
2014-09-17 9:56:46 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bestie1: Chummer45: bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT

The question remains open.  What new scientific work has TNG ever presented to show his creds.  Don't change the subject.

Serious question. Why do you refer to  Neil  DeGrasse  Tyson as  TNG?


Is that one of those things like calling the president BOB?
 
2014-09-17 9:57:43 AM  

born_yesterday: If the duct tape holding the chicken together is the only thing keeping it alive, does it still really qualify as a chicken?

Makes u think.


Maybe about getting a new chicken.
 
2014-09-17 10:01:47 AM  
Had me when he called Neil a "fabulous scientist." That he was Rick Perry's go to guy for something clinched the deal, or at least something clinched.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:02:01 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:02:03 AM  
Therefore Creationism is science and Santorum is President?
 
2014-09-17 10:03:26 AM  

bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Ignoring that you're a troll...

From wiki:
Neil deGrasse Tyson (/ˈniːəl dəˈɡræs ˈtaɪsən/; born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.

Alma mater
Harvard University (A.B.) University of Texas at Austin (M.A.) Columbia University (M.Phil., Ph.D.)
 
2014-09-17 10:04:26 AM  

LucklessWonder: Jackson Herring: black scienceman: the next generation

[shirtoid.com image 500x500]


I read that as:
What Would Gordi LaForge farking Do
 
2014-09-17 10:04:55 AM  
I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but I'm pretty sure February 2003 did not happen in the week after 9/11.

Suck it libs, book learning is officially obsolete. Don't need a PhD to know when February 2003 occurred.

Later Neil DeFartte Tyson

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:06:18 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


He looks like the sort that gets on the phone with his mother and snivels whenever his feelers are hurt.
 
2014-09-17 10:06:32 AM  
handsome science guy NYT
 
2014-09-17 10:07:09 AM  

sweetmelissa31: I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but I'm pretty sure February 2003 did not happen in the week after 9/11.

Suck it libs, book learning is officially obsolete. Don't need a PhD to know when February 2003 occurred.

Later Neil DeFartte Tyson

[img.fark.net image 322x128]


NDWP
 
2014-09-17 10:08:49 AM  
In America, when an unpopular message is delivered by a black man, we really, really, really, really attack the messenger.

Not with the same tactics and equipment and crowds of angry white locals like we used to. But we still really, really, really, really attack the messenger.
 
2014-09-17 10:09:09 AM  

NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.

Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.


So people are liking things you don't like and you want them to stop?
 
2014-09-17 10:09:15 AM  
OMG, now it looks like NdGT thinks kids are sexy. That's so gross. What a creep.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:09:53 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:10:12 AM  

bestie1: The issue isn't biblical literacy.  It's making up quotes and sourcing them to researchable sources.  If your going to make shiat up at least pick something people can't bing.  This latest quote is so egregious that it blows my mind.


You are confusing peer reviewed publications with TV entertainment.  The two areas do not overlap.

/everybody knows that
 
2014-09-17 10:12:12 AM  
chimg.onionstatic.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:12:18 AM  
thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.comView Full Size



"I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir's fantasies and they would dance in the streets."
 
2014-09-17 10:13:16 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: bestie1: The issue isn't biblical literacy.  It's making up quotes and sourcing them to researchable sources.  If your going to make shiat up at least pick something people can't bing.  This latest quote is so egregious that it blows my mind.

You are confusing peer reviewed publications with TV entertainment.  The two areas do not overlap.

/everybody knows that


Apparently not.

Also, remember that pro-life lady who was complaining that people wwre making up their minds before looking at the evidence? When asked if she'd ever read a peer review medical journal, she responded with "I don't know what that is, but I have a pamphlet for you to read."
 
2014-09-17 10:13:28 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: NickelP: bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.

He is a semi decent public speaker, who is atheist, and has a lot of visibility. The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me, he knows so much better than everyone else and he agrees with me so I'm smart too!' Is absurd

Basically everyone that only exists in your head.


Read the quotes in the article and the other articles he links to about this.  I don't mean read them for correctness or citations, read them for the points he is making with them.

Oh I'm NDT and I got dismissed from jury duty because I know science and know what a milligram is.  I'm so much smarter than judges and the court system.

Oh I'm NDT and I know what averages are.  I'm so much smarter than everyone else (just ignore the median thing for a minute).  I'm so much smarter than the media.

Oh I'm NDT and I know how many degrees are in a circle.  I'm so much smarter than congress.

etc etc.

My problem with him isn't that he is capable of noticing minor miss speakings of other people, or that he may misquote them.  Its that he sells himself (via promotion and expensive speaking engagements) as being 'so much smarter than everyone else because I believe in science' and then he puts down everyone else with a 'hey you are smart too because of science!' stance.  The man literally gets paid to talk about how stupid people are, except those paying him to make them feel smart.  Think about that.

Anyhow the author is a dbag, so is NDT, cosmos was a farking let down and I hope he fades from the public spot light soon.  If you want a great scientific mind that can engage people besides frat boys that hate the idea of a god, or middle aged people who can pay to get a crappy chicken dinner and listen to him speak about how they are smart because they have $100 to listen to him or their company can pay their fee then look a bit beyond the front page of reddit and fark.  There is tons of interesting scientist out there, but they focus on science and not publicity and how to maximize their speaking engagement revenue.
 
2014-09-17 10:13:32 AM  

SquiggsIN: Geek mode

The pips are wrong. He was a Lt. Cmdr.

/geek mode


That was before he was promoted.  He didn't just start out at lutenist commander.
 
2014-09-17 10:13:37 AM  

Saiga410: cameroncrazy1984: Saiga410: Shut up and science

If he doesn't say anything, how is he supposed to educate people about science? That's literally his job.

There is always morse code or semaphore.


In other words, you goofed.
 
2014-09-17 10:13:56 AM  
Voldemort had been defeated.

"He hated us for our freedom," Ron said.

"No, Ron," Harry said. "He hated us for our free markets."
 
2014-09-17 10:14:05 AM  

SquiggsIN: LucklessWonder: Jackson Herring: black scienceman: the next generation

[shirtoid.com image 500x500]

Geek mode

The pips are wrong.  He was a Lt. Cmdr.

/geek mode


WE DONE FLUSHED HIM OUT, BOYS--GET 'IM!
 
2014-09-17 10:14:34 AM  
The only thing that projector.jpg article is missing is a final paragraph on Fartbongo's latest golfing weekend zomg does this guy ever work also Benghazi cover-up IRSgate.
 
2014-09-17 10:14:49 AM  
Woah. WOAH. Tyson is a fan of Hitler? That's horrible. I can't believe he would say that Hitler had some good ideas. Ugh.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:14:55 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.

Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.

So ...


No but I'd like it if they were honest about why they liked it.............
 
2014-09-17 10:15:39 AM  
Well, this settles it! Since NGT paraphrased something GWB said with a tiny, insignificant inaccuracy then everything he says is now false, the Bible is word-for-word, literal truth and physics is a lie.

/Seriously, is this the goal they're seeking?
 
2014-09-17 10:15:39 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.

Planescape: Torment is farking awesome.

We used to play a bunch of spelljammers when I was a kid.  That was a pretty sweet campaign setting as well.


True but the Forgotten Realms is the one that everyone knows. Well at least before 4th edition and they farked everything up. Now Eberron is where it's at.
/Shadowrun in what I play now days. Mainly as I bought most the the rulebooks for 4th edition of that and 5th edition hasn't added nearly enough to warrent upgrading.
 
2014-09-17 10:16:54 AM  

mgshamster: Marcus Aurelius: bestie1: The issue isn't biblical literacy.  It's making up quotes and sourcing them to researchable sources.  If your going to make shiat up at least pick something people can't bing.  This latest quote is so egregious that it blows my mind.

You are confusing peer reviewed publications with TV entertainment.  The two areas do not overlap.

/everybody knows that

Apparently not.

Also, remember that pro-life lady who was complaining that people wwre making up their minds before looking at the evidence? When asked if she'd ever read a peer review medical journal, she responded with "I don't know what that is, but I have a pamphlet for you to read."


He's also pretty selective in his outrage.  There are blatant falsehoods broadcast all day long through the television, but somehow NDT's utterances are the ones he finds most objectionable.

I wonder why that is.
 
2014-09-17 10:16:55 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bestie1: Chummer45: bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Please tell us more about how much smarter you are than NDGT

The question remains open.  What new scientific work has TNG ever presented to show his creds.  Don't change the subject.

Serious question. Why do you refer to  Neil  DeGrasse  Tyson as  TNG?


Stop everyone! Bestie1 has made a mistake and got Neil Degrasse-Tyson name wrong! This proves he has no credibility and is incapable of fact checking. From this day forward we must disregard everything he says.
 
2014-09-17 10:18:14 AM  
He thinks kids are sexy, Hitler was cool, and now we have evidence that NdGT likes Nickelback. He actually said Nickelback is "a really great band." He said that! How can anybody trust this guy when he says stuff like that. Wow.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:18:39 AM  
If you base your whole argument on getting the facts right, you probably should make sure you get the facts right.
 
2014-09-17 10:18:43 AM  

joshiz: Great strategy: if you don't like the overarching ideas, just get extremely petty and nitpicky in a pathetic attempt to discredit the person delivering them.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

So even if he completely made up his allegories or anecdotes (which I highly doubt) so what? He is not presenting those as facts, just ways to illustrate his larger points - points which these people have no response to so they resort to just these kind of diversionary attacks.


As someone who has spent a decade debating educated, civilized people on Fark I have no clue people did this!
 
2014-09-17 10:19:57 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


I don't know if punching him would be the best idea, he looks like he either would enjoy it, or have more knives than fingers on his person and you'll pull back a stump.
 
2014-09-17 10:20:32 AM  

JohnAnnArbor: If you base your whole argument on getting the facts right, you probably should make sure you get the facts right.


They are called "anecdotes" for a reason.
 
2014-09-17 10:21:41 AM  

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


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:22:13 AM  
So, this guy says that what Tyson says about what Bush said the Bible says about what Isaiah says about which stars are named what by who is incorrect?  Stop the presses!!!
 
2014-09-17 10:23:16 AM  

NickelP: cameroncrazy1984: NickelP: bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.  The first two were the standard tripe that 8th grade science teachers make up.  This one is a uniformed political tirade.  Why do I not remember my college physics professors making these mistakes?  Oh I guess they were just boring and didn't have political agendas.

He is a semi decent public speaker, who is atheist, and has a lot of visibility. The hardons a bunch of people have for him 'cause omg he is smart like me, he knows so much better than everyone else and he agrees with me so I'm smart too!' Is absurd

Basically everyone that only exists in your head.

Read the quotes in the article and the other articles he links to about this.  I don't mean read them for correctness or citations, read them for the points he is making with them.

Oh I'm NDT and I got dismissed from jury duty because I know science and know what a milligram is.  I'm so much smarter than judges and the court system.

Oh I'm NDT and I know what averages are.  I'm so much smarter than everyone else (just ignore the median thing for a minute).  I'm so much smarter than the media.

Oh I'm NDT and I know how many degrees are in a circle.  I'm so much smarter than congress.

etc etc.

My problem with him isn't that he is capable of noticing minor miss speakings of other people, or that he may misquote them.  Its that he sells himself (via promotion and expensive speaking engagements) as being 'so much smarter than everyone else because I believe in science' and then he puts down everyone else with a 'hey you are smart too because of science!' stance.  The man literally gets paid to talk about how stupid people are, except those paying him to make them feel smart.  Think about that.

Anyhow the author is a dbag, so is NDT, cosmos was a farking let down and I hope he fades from the public sp ...



So in your mind NDGT is a d-bag because he gets speaking gigs and promotes himself by using his credentials and qualifications?  In other words, your problem with him isn't that he's not qualified to discuss science, it's that he's using his scientific knowledge to get publicity?

At least you're focusing on the important things, and found a way to criticize the author of the article and NDGT equally.  False equivalency is fun and, importantly, lets you stand out in this thread as someone on a totally higher level of thinking.
 
2014-09-17 10:23:38 AM  
Anybody that can't cite the offending occurrence before the fifth paragraph is neither a journalist nor a pundit. Just another shill who believes Science is a religion.
 
2014-09-17 10:23:52 AM  
This thread started dumb and got worse.
 
2014-09-17 10:24:09 AM  
NickelP:

The point of highlighting the severe problem we have in this country with math and science literacy is not to make you feel dumb, but to make those in power realize that it's a problem worth fixing.  The problem you have is that merely stating a fact is a personal attack.  Whether it's the perceived assault on religion in cosmos or your ridiculous overreaction to these anecdotes, you think that someone saying that we, as a country, are bad at math and science is an attack on them.  I'm not really sure how else we can begin to confront that problem without someone who is good at math and science working to set policy instead of... whatever we have now.  But I guess that would hurt everyone's feelings?
 
2014-09-17 10:25:47 AM  

SundaesChild: Is this one of those "We get it, he's black" moments?


Well...

I mean I don't know the author or his life, but the fact that his picture is the sort of image you'd cast "terrified racist wimp #2" as in some comedy involving Illinois Nazis leaves certain implications.
 
2014-09-17 10:25:49 AM  

turdferguson2k12: He thinks kids are sexy, Hitler was cool, and now we have evidence that NdGT likes Nickelback. He actually said Nickelback is "a really great band." He said that! How can anybody trust this guy when he says stuff like that. Wow.

[img.fark.net image 518x519]


Hey! You've gone way too far with that last pic!

/You should be ashamed.
 
2014-09-17 10:26:09 AM  

Chummer45: So in your mind NDGT is a d-bag because he gets speaking gigs and promotes himself by using his credentials and qualifications?


Remember how viciously Carl Sagan was attacked for doing the exact same thing?

Oh, wait, he wasn't, for some strange reason.  I wonder what could make the difference between Carl and Neil?

Think, think, think....
 
2014-09-17 10:26:28 AM  

James!: This thread started dumb and got worse.


Come on. You need proper accreditation.

"This thread started dumb and got worse."

--Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
2014-09-17 10:27:14 AM  

sweetmelissa31: I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but I'm pretty sure February 2003 did not happen in the week after 9/11.

Suck it libs, book learning is officially obsolete. Don't need a PhD to know when February 2003 occurred.

Later Neil DeFartte Tyson

[img.fark.net image 322x128]


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:27:58 AM  
i1207.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:30:22 AM  

sprawl15: i.imgur.com


oh my frick
 
2014-09-17 10:31:03 AM  
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.
 
2014-09-17 10:31:33 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:32:07 AM  

Jack Harper: NickelP:

The point of highlighting the severe problem we have in this country with math and science literacy is not to make you feel dumb, but to make those in power realize that it's a problem worth fixing.  The problem you have is that merely stating a fact is a personal attack.  Whether it's the perceived assault on religion in cosmos or your ridiculous overreaction to these anecdotes, you think that someone saying that we, as a country, are bad at math and science is an attack on them.  I'm not really sure how else we can begin to confront that problem without someone who is good at math and science working to set policy instead of... whatever we have now.  But I guess that would hurt everyone's feelings?


I think its possible people misspeak sometimes.  To isolate those in order to push your intelligence above them is pretty silly, more so when your end goal is selling your intelligence.  If folks want to pay to hear him talk about how smart he is then they can have at it.  I do find it comical his defenders have switched to 'people misspeak sometimes, rabble rabble rabble, ignore his misquotes, no one speaks off the cuff perfectly, rabble rabble rabble, to he is just pointing out how people don't science and math and if he needs to quote them when they slightly slip up then thats good!'

How is he working to set policy exactly?  What form of government has he been involved in and engaged?  Has he bothered running for his school board or any offices?  Is he supporting candidates he thinks will change these things?  Has he offered constructive means to change them?  Outside of saying 'OMG those guys are sooooo stupid, but you are soooo smart because you paid me to be here today or follow my twitter' what has he actually done to advance public policy in regards to the areas he is complaining about?
 
2014-09-17 10:32:32 AM  
"Is our children learning?"  -NdGT
 
2014-09-17 10:32:40 AM  

turdferguson2k12: He thinks kids are sexy, Hitler was cool, and now we have evidence that NdGT likes Nickelback. He actually said Nickelback is "a really great band." He said that! How can anybody trust this guy when he says stuff like that. Wow.

[img.fark.net image 518x519]


Looks like your subsequent image went too far with "misogamy" , though I guess mods are cool with this.
 
2014-09-17 10:33:26 AM  

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.


The ship was a little stupid in my opinion but I overall enjoyed it.  I was a bit worried he would try to imitate Sagan's style and he could never have pulled that off (not saying one is better than the other, just that they are not the same personality at all).  But he made it his own, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
 
2014-09-17 10:35:52 AM  

James!: This thread started dumb and got worse.


Well consider the source material.
 
2014-09-17 10:37:02 AM  
BTW Tyson's been doing a good job getting kids excited about science, which is a good counterweight to the anti-science know-nothingism of actual douchebags like Rick Perry. Who, you know, used to be this idiot blogger's boss.
 
2014-09-17 10:38:01 AM  
Wow, this thread is awesome. Some nobody on a crappy website points out that NDT lies about things and everyones butt explodes. Now this nobody is anti-science and a racist.
 
2014-09-17 10:38:44 AM  
This is another example of the "Obama says 'I' alot in his speeches" bullshiat.  Shoot the messenger, in other words. How on Earth do these people get PAID for this kind of ratfarkery?
 
2014-09-17 10:38:51 AM  
I'm quite fond of NDT's approach to being a sort of ambassador for science.  The problem is that it's hard to target both those who love science and those who viscerally hate and distrust it.

We have a pretty serious anti-intellectual streak in America.  I imagine that makes it pretty hard to communicate with us en masse.

I appreciate his trying.  But I'm not sure he's walking that fine line very well.
 
2014-09-17 10:39:28 AM  

keylock71: I thought they did a great job on the Cosmos. Still love the original, but Black Science Man's version was good, too.


Overall it was good but I was offended by the tarnishing of the good name of Humphry Davy.

Best scientist ever?

chemheritage.orgView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:39:41 AM  

I alone am best: Wow, this thread is awesome. Some nobody on a crappy website points out that NDT lies about things and everyones butt explodes. Now this nobody is anti-science and a racist.


Lotta boring trolls in here, but there's always room for another. Welcome!
 
2014-09-17 10:42:08 AM  

sweetmelissa31: keylock71: I thought they did a great job on the Cosmos. Still love the original, but Black Science Man's version was good, too.

Overall it was good but I was offended by the tarnishing of the good name of Humphry Davy.

Best scientist ever?

[www.chemheritage.org image 400x283]


holy shiat, not only did Humphry Davy apparently invent the science of farts, he also studied galvanic corrosion and its effects on ships
 
2014-09-17 10:42:30 AM  

Wooly Bully: I alone am best: Wow, this thread is awesome. Some nobody on a crappy website points out that NDT lies about things and everyones butt explodes. Now this nobody is anti-science and a racist.

Lotta boring trolls in here, but there's always room for another. Welcome!


I hope you have a standing desk, it must be hard to sit with that amount of butthurt.
 
2014-09-17 10:43:35 AM  

I alone am best: Wow, this thread is awesome. Some nobody on a crappy website points out that NDT lies about things and everyones butt explodes. Now this nobody is anti-science and a racist.



Know how I know you didn't actually read the thread?
 
2014-09-17 10:43:49 AM  

I alone am best: Now this nobody is anti-science and a racist.


In people's defense that could just be them playing the odds considering this guy is a right wing pundit.
 
2014-09-17 10:44:55 AM  

BeesNuts: I'm quite fond of NDT's approach to being a sort of ambassador for science.  The problem is that it's hard to target both those who love science and those who viscerally hate and distrust it.

We have a pretty serious anti-intellectual streak in America.  I imagine that makes it pretty hard to communicate with us en masse.

I appreciate his trying.  But I'm not sure he's walking that fine line very well.


I tried to talk to a fundie I work with about science the other day. It did not turn out well. I know the guy isnt stupid but he would literally not listen to anything that may have remotely challenged his world view.
 
2014-09-17 10:45:30 AM  

I alone am best: I hope you have a standing desk, it must be hard to sit with that amount of butthurt.



Is the same "butthurt" libruls express about Palin getting media coverage?
 
2014-09-17 10:46:06 AM  

nekom: The ship was a little stupid in my opinion but I overall enjoyed it.


Yeah, it was... But my younger cousins loved it. I'll deal with a little cheesy to see kids getting excited about science. The original had its cheesy moments, too, but I loved it when I was a kid.


sweetmelissa31: keylock71: I thought they did a great job on the Cosmos. Still love the original, but Black Science Man's version was good, too.

Overall it was good but I was offended by the tarnishing of the good name of Humphry Davy.

Best scientist ever?

[www.chemheritage.org image 400x283]


Look, I know you think you're trying to be funny, but it's still way too soon to be joking about The Great Cabbage Fart Panic of 1795.
 
2014-09-17 10:48:49 AM  

Lord_Baull: I alone am best: I hope you have a standing desk, it must be hard to sit with that amount of butthurt.


Is the same "butthurt" libruls express about Palin getting media coverage?


What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
2014-09-17 10:48:53 AM  

Karac: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Now hold on a minute - everyone should read about Planescape.  It is quite possibly the best setting for any game I've ever encountered.


Never played Planescape. How's that compare to the best setting for 3.X, Eberron?

Also, the author has a seriously raging hateboner for Tyson.
 
2014-09-17 10:49:45 AM  
Jackson Herring:
holy shiat, not only did Humphry Davy apparently invent the science of farts, he also studied galvanic corrosion and its effects on ships

Also dang, am I right ladies

l.wigflip.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:49:47 AM  

Jackson Herring: holy shiat, not only did Humphry Davy apparently invent the science of farts


Inspired, I looked this up and learned that he researched the possible medical benefits of fart gas (lots of great stuff in here):

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O128-farting.html
 
2014-09-17 10:50:17 AM  

NickelP: Oh I'm NDT and I got dismissed from jury duty because I know science and know what a milligram is.  I'm so much smarter than judges and the court system.

Oh I'm NDT and I know what averages are.  I'm so much smarter than everyone else (just ignore the median thing for a minute).  I'm so much smarter than the media.

Oh I'm NDT and I know how many degrees are in a circle.  I'm so much smarter than congress.


Oh Grimey, will you ever win?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:52:08 AM  
People say "Yo, Humpty, you're really funny lookin'"
that's all right 'cause I get things cookin'
Ya stare, ya glare, ya constantly try to compare me
but ya can't get near me
I give 'em more, see, and on the floor, B,
all the girls they adore me
Oh yes, ladies, I'm really bein' sincere
'cause in a 69 my humpty nose will tickle ya rear.
 
2014-09-17 10:52:56 AM  

I alone am best: Lord_Baull: I alone am best: I hope you have a standing desk, it must be hard to sit with that amount of butthurt.


Is the same "butthurt" libruls express about Palin getting media coverage?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


i13.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:53:52 AM  

NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP:

I think its possible people misspeak sometimes.


Ok.  But it's also possible that a person is lacking in math or science literacy.  Is his anecdote really unbelievable?

To isolate those in order to push your intelligence above them is pretty silly, more so when your end goal is selling your intelligence.

If he was merely selling his intelligence, he would be holding a cushy dean job.  Instead, he works at the same job where he made a name for himself- as the director of the Hayden Planetarium, at the American Museum of Natural History.  The job of a museum is to educate the public.  Couldn't he just be attempting to, you know, educate the public?

If folks want to pay to hear him talk about how smart he is then they can have at it.  I do find it comical his defenders have switched to 'people misspeak sometimes, rabble rabble rabble, ignore his misquotes, no one speaks off the cuff perfectly, rabble rabble rabble, to he is just pointing out how people don't science and math and if he needs to quote them when they slightly slip up then thats good!'

You find it comical because you decided that people misspoke instead of sucking at math so you are the only person who can see that relationship.

How is he working to set policy exactly?

US President George W. Bush appointed Tyson to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and in 2004 to serve on the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, the latter better known as the "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" commission. Soon afterward he was awarded the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by NASA.

Just one of many examples.

What form of government has he been involved in and engaged?

You don't need to actually be in government to influence policy.  But he actually was, so this is a doubly asinine question.

Has he bothered running for his school board or any offices?

We're not talking about a school board member right now, so obviously he has sufficient influence where he's at.

Is he supporting candidates he thinks will change these things?

Yes.

Has he offered constructive means to change them?

Yes...

Outside of saying 'OMG those guys are sooooo stupid, but you are soooo smart because you paid me to be here today or follow my twitter' what has he actually done to advance public policy in regards to the areas he is complaining about?

... unless you always construe criticism of math and science literacy as a personal attack.  So, I guess any criticism of math and science education, no matter how valid or constructive, is going to fall into this category.
 
2014-09-17 10:56:03 AM  

I alone am best: it must be hard to sit with that amount of butthurt


The troll with the TNG joke was actually funny, but there's still time for you to do something with your butt theme here. Try a little harder.
 
2014-09-17 10:58:44 AM  

Wooly Bully: I alone am best: it must be hard to sit with that amount of butthurt

The troll with the TNG joke was actually funny, but there's still time for you to do something with your butt theme here. Try a little harder.


Maybe he just needs a new but-thurt?
 
2014-09-17 10:59:29 AM  

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


Well that's probably going to be the highlight of my day now.  Might as well go back to bed.
 
2014-09-17 11:02:54 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


Ugh. It's like Steve Buscemi farked pedantry itself.
 
2014-09-17 11:09:40 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Really? That's the attitude we're going with?

"Who cares about the proof, I like what he says so it's OK."

SCIENCE!

No, the attitude we're going with is "seeing the forest for the trees".  Mr. Degrasse-Tyson misquoted Bush. BFD. The quote was really not the focus of the speech.  It's stupid nitpicky bullshiat designed to distract from the matter at hand.

It's like when people get all huffy and say "Well, Sarah Palin never actually said she could see Russia from her house."  No shiat, Sherlock.  She said that living in a state that's close to Russia made her a foreign policy expert.  The "I can see Russia from my house!" line was meant to mock her for that.



So, like I said - we're apparently going with "I like what he's saying so it doesn't matter if he's making stuff up."

Fark: where fact checking cited sources is considered "nitpicky bullshiat."

Here's how it works when rational adults consider things like "facts," "evidence," and "quotations" : if you are fact checked on the little things in your writing, or speeches, or academic writings, and it's discovered that you're making up the little things, then it automatically calls into question the entire point you are trying to make. Making shiat up undercuts the credibility of your entire argument - which is why it's generally considered a no-no, as well as against every rule of professional conduct ever.

NDT was using these "direct quotes" as evidence to support his point that journalists and politicians don't understand science. You seriously don't see the problem here?

I suspect you actually do, and you just want to give NDT a pass because you agree with what he is saying.

The really sad thing here is that the little shiatworm that authored TFA was 100% correct: there was absolutely, 100% NO DAMN REASON to make anything up. There are a plethora of examples out there of politicians and journalists that very publicly don't understand science. Making shiat up in this case is beyond lazy; I would classify it as "outright condescending to the audience." The fact that NDT gets the whole "half the students are below average" thing hilariously wrong is just icing on the cake (although that particular one is probably most jarring to me).

Everyone wants to demand evidence from viewpoints that they DON'T agree with, and give a pass to things they do agree with. This is, universally, the most horrendously incorrect way to approach proof and verification.

Confirmation bias means that we tend to seek out, remember, and agree with stuff that caters to our preconceived opinion.

For your average liberal farker, this means that the most dangerous source of information is from liberals (the converse is true for conservatives). Because people that agree with you (by definition) will feed you plausible sounding bullshiat that you swallow whole because it sounds good and plays to your confirmation bias. The most dangerous sources of misinformation and disinformation are people we agree with - people really like to hear what they already know, repackaged.

Consequentially, this means we should fact check people we agree with harder than the opposition. Not only because they are liable to slip bullshiat past your filters, but also because knowing if your side is right or wrong strengthens your own knowledge and position.

The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain, but he's 100% right to call bullshiat bullshiat, whether he agrees with NDT's overarching motivations/politics/whatever or not.  As someone that happens to agree with NDT on many things, I actually appreciate it.
 
2014-09-17 11:12:56 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....


Tyson is obviously not much of an atheist, nor smarter than most atheists on Fark since the average atheist here claims to have read and know the bible better than christians.
 
2014-09-17 11:13:56 AM  

Elegy: if you are fact checked on the little things in your writing, or speeches, or academic writings, and it's discovered that you're making up the little things, then it automatically calls into question the entire point you are trying to make. Making shiat up undercuts the credibility of your entire argument - which is why it's generally considered a no-no, as well as against every rule of professional conduct ever.


Where does this right wing pundit fall on the credibility scale?
 
2014-09-17 11:15:03 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....


And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.

And, Tyson seems to have a general habit of making quotes up.

Yes, the author is a right wing partisan.  That doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong in this particular case.  He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.
 
2014-09-17 11:15:44 AM  

LucklessWonder: Jackson Herring: black scienceman: the next generation

[shirtoid.com image 500x500]


I need that shirt.
 
2014-09-17 11:19:26 AM  

Cestius_Ataturk: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

Tyson is obviously not much of an atheist, nor smarter than most atheists on Fark since the average atheist here claims to have read and know the bible better than christians.


It's almost like you can be an atheist whether you've read the bible or not. It's not like that's a major requirement to not believing in a god.
 
2014-09-17 11:20:59 AM  

Geotpf: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.

And, Tyson seems to have a general habit of making quotes up.

Yes, the author is a right wing partisan.  That doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong in this particular case.  He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.


Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?
 
2014-09-17 11:22:55 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?


If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.  It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.
 
2014-09-17 11:23:52 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


I would be punched in the face a thousand times just so I can punch that face.
 
2014-09-17 11:24:26 AM  

Elegy: The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain


Well you got one thing right in all of that typing.

The main thing you got completely wrong is that Tyson's inaccurate quotation casts doubt on his overall message. That's what this idiot blogger wants people to believe, of course, but it's pretty obvious why he's doing it, and it isn't his interest in accuracy.
 
2014-09-17 11:24:34 AM  

Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.  It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.


If it is being broadcast on television, it's automatically pap in any case.  There is nothing even remotely credible on television.  It is purely an entertainment medium.
 
2014-09-17 11:27:29 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.  It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.

If it is being broadcast on television, it's automatically pap in any case.  There is nothing even remotely credible on television.  It is purely an entertainment medium.


That's bull too.  The medium doesn't invalidate the message.
 
2014-09-17 11:28:56 AM  
Wow. Who knew there was such a thing as Neil deGrasse Tyson Derangement Syndrome? I guess the internet allows the weirdest people to get their freak on together.
 
2014-09-17 11:29:22 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.comView Full Size

"Not seeing a problem here..."
 
2014-09-17 11:29:29 AM  

Wooly Bully: Elegy: The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain

Well you got one thing right in all of that typing.

The main thing you got completely wrong is that Tyson's inaccurate quotation casts doubt on his overall message. That's what this idiot blogger wants people to believe, of course, but it's pretty obvious why he's doing it, and it isn't his interest in accuracy.


The author is showing a pattern where Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air.  That does hurt his overall credibility and message severely, even if you don't want to think so because you agree with his message.  If he makes up the little crap, how can you trust him on the big picture?
 
2014-09-17 11:30:28 AM  

Geotpf: Forbidden Doughnut: Not getting some bible reference right ( Isiah vs Genesis, or something) is excessively nitpicky. (It would be like me getting upset at a Fundamentalist Christian for not having read anything by Voltaire ,Thomas Paine* , or the AD&D "Planescape" campaign sourcebooks )

/ esp. Paine's "The Age of Reason"; lots of things in that one to p*ss off fundamentalists of ALL stripes....

And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.

And, Tyson seems to have a general habit of making quotes up.

Yes, the author is a right wing partisan.  That doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong in this particular case.  He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.


This reminds me of the time when Obama met up with a group of newly pined Eagle Scouts in 2009 and he stated that this is a group we must degrade and dismantle.
 
2014-09-17 11:31:43 AM  

Geotpf: Marcus Aurelius: Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.  It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.

If it is being broadcast on television, it's automatically pap in any case.  There is nothing even remotely credible on television.  It is purely an entertainment medium.

That's bull too.  The medium doesn't invalidate the message.


Are you saying that television has standards comparable to a peer reviewed journal?
 
2014-09-17 11:31:45 AM  

LucklessWonder: Jackson Herring: black scienceman: the next generation

[shirtoid.com image 500x500]


Reverse the polarity of the power coupling, of course!

/how many times did the Enterprise-D's warp core breach?
 
2014-09-17 11:32:19 AM  

Geotpf: If he makes up the little crap, how can you trust him on the big picture?


Peer review.
 
2014-09-17 11:33:09 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: SundaesChild: Is this one of those "We get it, he's black" moments?

Actually, I think any of that is implied in the article....which is a (gradual) societal improvement, I think.


Holy shiat, he is.

I had never once consciously thought about that fact. Like, it just occurred to me right now.

For me at least I just notice it about someone in an offhand way, probably because I live in an area with mostly white people. "Oh hey, a black/Asian/Indian guy." Don't know what that says about me though, good or bad.

Mind blown.
 
2014-09-17 11:35:15 AM  

Geotpf: Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air.


That's what the idiot blogger claims, but it sounds like Tyson was just somewhat inaccurate about a couple of very trivial quotes.

That's not the same as lying, something which the idiot blogger's former boss Rick Perry does all the time, not to mention the party the idiot blogger is carrying water for. And yet, incredibly, the idiot blogger is not ranting and raving about what terrible liars these people are.
 
2014-09-17 11:41:53 AM  

Elegy: As someone that happens to agree with NDT on many things, I actually appreciate it.


Truth is clearly appreciated.

What most people are biatching about is the notion that somehow several misspoken/wrong/deliberate lies (pick one) would somehow invalidate the scientific research done by Tyson.

Do the lies lessen Tyson's work? No, because of the fact that they're peer reviewed almost always. Should he stop telling lies and make sure his non-science facts are straight? Absolutely, it only damages his reputation.

Some things he's said are mistakes, but some things he's said are not true, either. He should get called out on it.
 
2014-09-17 11:42:38 AM  

Wooly Bully: Geotpf: Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air.

That's what the idiot blogger claims, but it sounds like Tyson was just somewhat inaccurate about a couple of very trivial quotes.

That's not the same as lying, something which the idiot blogger's former boss Rick Perry does all the time, not to mention the party the idiot blogger is carrying water for. And yet, incredibly, the idiot blogger is not ranting and raving about what terrible liars these people are.


It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air during presentations and lectures, usually to point out how ordinary people (including an unnamed judge, an unnamed Congressman, and Bush) are ignorant of logic and science.  The thing is, he could use real examples to make that point, but he chooses to take the lazy way out and just spout bullshiat.  It is completely legitimate to call him out on this.

I'm baffled that this many people here think calling a liar a liar is some how a bad thing.
 
2014-09-17 11:49:19 AM  

Geotpf: It is completely legitimate to call him out on this.


It is absolutely not legitimate coming from a former employee of Rick Perry and the f*cking Republican Party. This "article" is an obviously biased hit piece by a political tool of the anti-science party.

It's funny that you ignore that and keep repeating the overstated and under-substantiated charge that Tyson's deliberately lying.
 
2014-09-17 11:51:32 AM  

Geotpf: It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air


In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.
 
2014-09-17 11:53:21 AM  

Geotpf: Wooly Bully: Elegy: The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain

Well you got one thing right in all of that typing.

The main thing you got completely wrong is that Tyson's inaccurate quotation casts doubt on his overall message. That's what this idiot blogger wants people to believe, of course, but it's pretty obvious why he's doing it, and it isn't his interest in accuracy.

The author is showing a pattern where Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air.  That does hurt his overall credibility and message severely, even if you don't want to think so because you agree with his message.  If he makes up the little crap, how can you trust him on the big picture?


The article does not show a pattern; the article claims a pattern. When I went through several of the links which were supposed to show proof, all I saw was more claims without proof - typically a "I couldn't find the quote on the net, therefore NDT is lying about the quote."

/I did not look into the Bush quote, I just chose random links the author used as evidence.
 
2014-09-17 11:55:25 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


"Pump your brakes, kid, that man's a national treasure."

/Animated gif is too large
 
2014-09-17 11:56:04 AM  

Jackson Herring: Geotpf: It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air

In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.

TYSON: Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

He says, "Our God" - of course it's actually the same God, but that's a detail, let's hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let's hold that aside. He says, "Our God is the God" - he's loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis - "Our God is the God who named the stars."


Did the Columbia shuttle crash into the WTC?
 
2014-09-17 11:56:05 AM  

NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP:

The point of highlighting the severe problem we have in this country with math and science literacy is not to make you feel dumb, but to make those in power realize that it's a problem worth fixing.  The problem you have is that merely stating a fact is a personal attack.  Whether it's the perceived assault on religion in cosmos or your ridiculous overreaction to these anecdotes, you think that someone saying that we, as a country, are bad at math and science is an attack on them.  I'm not really sure how else we can begin to confront that problem without someone who is good at math and science working to set policy instead of... whatever we have now.  But I guess that would hurt everyone's feelings?

I think its possible people misspeak sometimes.  To isolate those in order to push your intelligence above them is pretty silly, more so when your end goal is selling your intelligence.  If folks want to pay to hear him talk about how smart he is then they can have at it.  I do find it comical his defenders have switched to 'people misspeak sometimes, rabble rabble rabble, ignore his misquotes, no one speaks off the cuff perfectly, rabble rabble rabble, to he is just pointing out how people don't science and math and if he needs to quote them when they slightly slip up then thats good!'

How is he working to set policy exactly?  What form of government has he been involved in and engaged?  Has he bothered running for his school board or any offices?  Is he supporting candidates he thinks will change these things?  Has he offered constructive means to change them?  Outside of saying 'OMG those guys are sooooo stupid, but you are soooo smart because you paid me to be here today or follow my twitter' what has he actually done to advance public policy in regards to the areas he is complaining about?



Um.  educating the electorate about basic science is a great service toward advancing public policy.  But then again you just want to sit here asking questions pretending that he's some nefarious asshole because reasons.
 
2014-09-17 11:57:17 AM  

I alone am best: Jackson Herring: Geotpf: It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air

In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.

TYSON: Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

He says, "Our God" - of course it's actually the same God, but that's a detail, let's hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let's hold that aside. He says, "Our God is the God" - he's loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis - "Our God is the God who named the stars."

Did the Columbia shuttle crash into the WTC?


no, it crashed into the pentagon
 
2014-09-17 11:58:05 AM  

Geotpf: I'm baffled that this many people here think calling a liar a liar is some how a bad thing.


As a member of the right wing media it's more like a pathalogical liar calling out someone who bends the truth for dramatic effect.
 
2014-09-17 11:58:19 AM  

bestie1: What science has TNG ever done?  He's a talking head.  Stephen Hawking did/does science.  TNG puts on a carnival that makes dumb people feel smart.


Gee, what's your take on his mentor, Carl Sagan?  I'm sure you personally see him as shiat peddler too, right?
 
2014-09-17 12:00:40 PM  

Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.   It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.



No it doesn't.
 
2014-09-17 12:02:15 PM  

Geotpf: Wooly Bully: Geotpf: Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air.

That's what the idiot blogger claims, but it sounds like Tyson was just somewhat inaccurate about a couple of very trivial quotes.

That's not the same as lying, something which the idiot blogger's former boss Rick Perry does all the time, not to mention the party the idiot blogger is carrying water for. And yet, incredibly, the idiot blogger is not ranting and raving about what terrible liars these people are.

It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air during presentations and lectures, usually to point out how ordinary people (including an unnamed judge, an unnamed Congressman, and Bush) are ignorant of logic and science.  The thing is, he could use real examples to make that point, but he chooses to take the lazy way out and just spout bullshiat.  It is completely legitimate to call him out on this.

I'm baffled that this many people here think calling a liar a liar is some how a bad thing.



My dog just perked his ears up
 
2014-09-17 12:02:31 PM  
Well, at least between this and the climate change thread, I've gotten to update many of my mysteriously disappeared troll grays.

How many are allowed in one thread anyway?
 
2014-09-17 12:05:48 PM  

Chummer45: Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.   It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.


No it doesn't.


Ok, you're right, it doesn't "invalidate everything you say".

But still, if you are trying to convince the general public that what you are saying is true, lying is not helpful.
 
2014-09-17 12:06:32 PM  

bestie1: It kind of seems like NGT has his own religion. This is the third time in one week that I've seen proof that he's full of shiat yet he's still the savior to so many people.


He is one of those people/things that The Internet has declared Cool. Thus, he is untouchable.

No matter how full of shiat he is. The sheep will always line up protect him. Most of the posts here didn't even read the article because of the headline.

BTW, his Cosmos was boring. Carl Sagan is a tough act to follow.
 
2014-09-17 12:06:39 PM  
Geotpf:

It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air during presentations and lectures, usually to point out how ordinary people (including an unnamed judge, an unnamed Congressman, and Bush) are ignorant of logic and science.  The thing is, he could use real examples to make that point, but he chooses to take the lazy way out and just spout bullshiat.  It is completely legitimate to call him out on this.

I'm baffled that this many people here think calling a liar a liar is some how a bad thing.


Ok, you're a liar.

There, that was easy.
 
2014-09-17 12:08:52 PM  
I made the mistake of clicking through to his "OMG he doesn't understand that median != mean!" stuff, and I have a serious question for anyone who actually knows:

How are schools measured for comparison? Are they giving a numerical score/grade or are they simply ranked based on some combination of metrics? If they aren't given a numerical score then getting the mean of schools is identical to the median: if each is given a rank so the value of each is a different integer with the set all equally spaced from the next closest integer then there is no value added by attempting to get a mean measurement.

The rest of his argument is that NDT claimed that was a newspaper headline when in fact it was an excerpt from a newspaper article. Scandal!
 
2014-09-17 12:10:00 PM  

someonelse: Wow. Who knew there was such a thing as Neil deGrasse Tyson Derangement Syndrome? I guess the internet allows the weirdest people to get their freak on together.


He talked bad about evolution, and uses a lot of big words.  Also, black.

So they had it out for him ever since he dared to appear on their TVs making them look dumb.
 
2014-09-17 12:10:54 PM  

Chummer45: Geotpf: Wooly Bully: Geotpf: Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air.

That's what the idiot blogger claims, but it sounds like Tyson was just somewhat inaccurate about a couple of very trivial quotes.

That's not the same as lying, something which the idiot blogger's former boss Rick Perry does all the time, not to mention the party the idiot blogger is carrying water for. And yet, incredibly, the idiot blogger is not ranting and raving about what terrible liars these people are.

It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air during presentations and lectures, usually to point out how ordinary people (including an unnamed judge, an unnamed Congressman, and Bush) are ignorant of logic and science.  The thing is, he could use real examples to make that point, but he chooses to take the lazy way out and just spout bullshiat.  It is completely legitimate to call him out on this.

I'm baffled that this many people here think calling a liar a liar is some how a bad thing.


My dog just perked his ears up


What does that even mean?  If you are inferring that I am taking a racist stand here, you're very incorrect.

Likewise, people who think I'm trolling, or a right wing shill, are also very incorrect.

My only point is, when trying to convince a skeptical public that something (science in general in this case) is the truth, lying seriously hurts your cause.

The best case scenario here is that Tyson actually listens to the criticism here and stops casually making up quotes.
 
2014-09-17 12:11:44 PM  

Grungehamster: I made the mistake of clicking through to his "OMG he doesn't understand that median != mean!" stuff, and I have a serious question for anyone who actually knows:

How are schools measured for comparison? Are they giving a numerical score/grade or are they simply ranked based on some combination of metrics? If they aren't given a numerical score then getting the mean of schools is identical to the median: if each is given a rank so the value of each is a different integer with the set all equally spaced from the next closest integer then there is no value added by attempting to get a mean measurement.

The rest of his argument is that NDT claimed that was a newspaper headline when in fact it was an excerpt from a newspaper article. Scandal!


Yeah, the average/mean crap was quite weak sauce.
 
2014-09-17 12:12:52 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Geotpf:

It seems like Tyson routinely makes stuff up out thin air during presentations and lectures, usually to point out how ordinary people (including an unnamed judge, an unnamed Congressman, and Bush) are ignorant of logic and science.  The thing is, he could use real examples to make that point, but he chooses to take the lazy way out and just spout bullshiat.  It is completely legitimate to call him out on this.

I'm baffled that this many people here think calling a liar a liar is some how a bad thing.

Ok, you're a liar.

There, that was easy.


Where did I lie?
 
2014-09-17 12:13:21 PM  
Based on Geotpf is saying, we can disregard everything that NDT has said due to his being wrong on a misquotation, right?

Well, his mentor Carl Sagan was wrong on some of the things he presented in the original 'Cosmos' series as being fact (granted, some were corrected many years later by himself, and some were corrected by others).  So, based on Geotpf's beliefs, Dr. Sagan was wrong about everything he presented.
 
2014-09-17 12:16:08 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Based on Geotpf is saying, we can disregard everything that NDT has said due to his being wrong on a misquotation, right?


No, I'm saying that his job is to show the general public the truth (about science), and casually lying (on multiple occasions) hurts his ability to be seen as an honest broker of the truth.
 
2014-09-17 12:18:16 PM  

Chummer45: My dog just perked his ears up


That is a bit of a stretch. Saying that somebody is taking the lazy way out is not calling them lazy and even if it was calling a single person who is black lazy isn't racist.
 
2014-09-17 12:18:46 PM  

Geotpf: AurizenDarkstar: Based on Geotpf is saying, we can disregard everything that NDT has said due to his being wrong on a misquotation, right?

No, I'm saying that his job is to show the general public the truth (about science), and casually lying (on multiple occasions) hurts his ability to be seen as an honest broker of the truth.


Now my dogs ears are really picking up.
 
2014-09-17 12:27:03 PM  
Such a shame.

As everyone here knows, any mistake instantly revokes all credibility.

So, all science is now invalid. Oh well. It was good while it lasted. Begin the book burning.
 
2014-09-17 12:27:33 PM  

Geotpf: AurizenDarkstar: Based on Geotpf is saying, we can disregard everything that NDT has said due to his being wrong on a misquotation, right?

No, I'm saying that his job is to show the general public the truth (about science), and casually lying (on multiple occasions) hurts his ability to be seen as an honest broker of the truth.



The problem is that you are buying into the "NDGT lies all the time" bullshiat that this stupid blogger is prattling on about.  And by fixating on ultimately inconsequential errors in his remarks, you're acting like he's either stupid or blatantly distorting science to fit a political agenda.  Neither could be further from the truth.
 
2014-09-17 12:27:47 PM  

Geotpf: Chummer45: Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.   It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.


No it doesn't.

Ok, you're right, it doesn't "invalidate everything you say".

But still, if you are trying to convince the general public that what you are saying is true, lying is not helpful.


If we are now holding public officials accountable to this granular a level of linguistic minutiae, then conservatives have officially won their last national election ever.

imokwiththis.jpg
 
2014-09-17 12:28:30 PM  
You Tyson ass-kissers can all go to hell!  His discreditization is complete!

AND PLUTO IS A PLANET AGAIN!
 
2014-09-17 12:28:39 PM  

Destructor: Such a shame.

As everyone here knows, any mistake instantly revokes all credibility.

So, all science is now invalid. Oh well. It was good while it lasted. Begin the book burning.


Looks like we'll never put a man on mars now.  That's alright, Jesus will be back any day now so this is all irrelevant.
 
2014-09-17 12:29:31 PM  
Has anyone gone through all Bush's speeches yet or are we taking a known propagandist at his word that NdGT got some shiat wrong?
 
2014-09-17 12:30:43 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Has anyone gone through all Bush's speeches yet or are we taking a known propagandist at his word that NdGT got some shiat wrong?



For the trolls in this thread, it's the latter.
 
2014-09-17 12:31:03 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Has anyone gone through all Bush's speeches yet or are we taking a known propagandist at his word that NdGT got some shiat wrong?


bush definitely said it, but Science Person had the context wrong

therefore he lied, bald eagles cried, etc
 
2014-09-17 12:31:08 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Based on Geotpf is saying, we can disregard everything that NDT has said due to his being wrong on a misquotation, right?

Well, his mentor Carl Sagan was wrong on some of the things he presented in the original 'Cosmos' series as being fact (granted, some were corrected many years later by himself, and some were corrected by others).  So, based on Geotpf's beliefs, Dr. Sagan was wrong about everything he presented.


Yup, and if the author really has to be that pedantic in order to qualify someone as a "liar" then we can also discount everything they have to say as bullshait.
 
2014-09-17 12:31:11 PM  

Geotpf: cameroncrazy1984: Is Tyson's point invalid? If not, what's the problem?

If you quote somebody, you should, you know, actually quote somebody instead of pulling random crap out of your ass.  It invalidates everything else you say and makes you an unreliable source.


He didn't quote. He paraphrased.
 
2014-09-17 12:32:21 PM  

Geotpf: Yes, the author is a right wing partisan.  That doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong in this particular case.  He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.


Pretty much my thoughts here as well.  Generally science folks are a bit more careful with the facts.  That does not appear to be the case here as it appears that a political agenda outweighs the goal of being truthful.
 
2014-09-17 12:35:55 PM  

Jackson Herring: Shakin_Haitian: Has anyone gone through all Bush's speeches yet or are we taking a known propagandist at his word that NdGT got some shiat wrong?

bush definitely said it, but Science Person had the context wrong

therefore he lied, bald eagles cried, etc


I wanna know how this Tyson bastard displays an American flag!
 
2014-09-17 12:36:36 PM  

Chummer45: Looks like we'll never put a man on mars now.


img.fark.netView Full Size


Chummer45: That's alright, Jesus will be back any day now so this is all irrelevant.


Also good.

/Actually, wtg SpaceX / Boeing. wooooo!
 
2014-09-17 12:36:45 PM  

HeadLever: Geotpf: Yes, the author is a right wing partisan.  That doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong in this particular case.  He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.

Pretty much my thoughts here as well.  Generally science folks are a bit more careful with the facts.  That does not appear to be the case here as it appears that a political agenda outweighs the goal of being truthful.



If his "political agenda" is to raise awareness as to how absurd the anti-science sentiment is amongst right wingers, then I'm ok with this.  Also, I love that the derp has become so ingrained on the right that a scientist speaking out against stupidity and scientific ignorance now constitutes a political agenda.
 
2014-09-17 12:39:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: He didn't quote. He paraphrased.


The problem is there is no proof he even said anything similar in the timeframe of the weeks following 9/11.  Regarding whether he is directly quoting or paraphrasing is pretty much irrelevant when neither occurred.
 
2014-09-17 12:39:43 PM  

Chummer45: The problem is that you are buying into the "NDGT lies all the time" bullshiat that this stupid blogger is prattling on about.  And by fixating on ultimately inconsequential errors in his remarks, you're acting like he's either stupid or blatantly distorting science to fit a political agenda.  Neither could be further from the truth.


He gave four examples where it appears Tyson made up quotes or anecotes out of thin air.

1. The Bush quote in question
2. The "average" newspaper headline
3. The congressman quote
4. The jury duty ancedote

The author also says that those were the only four he examined so far (so Tyson told the truth zero times out of four).  No way to prove that, of course; the author could be lying here as well.
 
2014-09-17 12:40:01 PM  
Ben Domenech

Benjamin Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist and writes The Transom, a daily subscription newsletter for political insiders. Domenech also serves as a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, specializing in health care and entitlement policy. He previously worked as speechwriter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, and as chief speechwriter for U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Domenech is also editor in chief of The City, an academic journal on faith and culture; and co-host of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning podcast focused on politics, policy, and the marketplace. He co-founded Redstate and appears regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, and The Blaze. He lives in Virginia. Email him at ben[nospam-﹫-backwards]t­sil­a­re­de­feht*co­m


After initially denying the plagiarism allegations, Domenech apolgized, writing in a RedState post entitled "Contrition," that "[t]here is no excuse for this.... I hope that nothing I've done as a teenager or in my professional life will reflect badly on the movement and principles I believe in."[31]

More recently, Domenech was involved in a journalism scandal that resulted in the removal of his work from The Washington Examiner and the Huffington Post when it was disclosed that Domenech received $36,000 from Joshua Trevino, a conservative pundit and lobbbyist, to write favorable opinion pieces about the government of Malaysia without disclosing the relationship. The payments came to light when Trevino registered as a foreign agent of the Malaysian government.[32]
 
2014-09-17 12:40:12 PM  

Chummer45: If his "political agenda" is to raise awareness as to how absurd the anti-science sentiment is amongst right wingers, then I'm ok with this.


By lying and making stuff up?

Ok,  Backsintobush.jpg
 
2014-09-17 12:40:18 PM  

Chummer45: Also, I love that the derp has become so ingrained on the right that a scientist speaking out against stupidity and scientific ignorance now constitutes a political agenda.


The Tea Party was founded on it.
 
2014-09-17 12:43:15 PM  

Fart_Machine: The Tea Party was founded on it.


And unfortunately, it appears that others are latching on to the same idea.
 
2014-09-17 12:45:14 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: If his "political agenda" is to raise awareness as to how absurd the anti-science sentiment is amongst right wingers, then I'm ok with this.

By lying and making stuff up?

Ok,  Backsintobush.jpg



You're presuming that this right wing hack is correct that NDGT is out there "lying and making stuff up."  Even the examples he's giving don't indicate any evidence that he did anything except possibly misquote someone, or tell a personal anecdote in an inconsistent way.

I guarantee if you took anyone who regularly publicly talks about anything you could easily find similar examples of them "lying and making stuff up."  but more importantly, this IN NO WAY UNDERMINES HIS CREDIBILITY AS A SCIENTIST.  He's not a historian talking about things that Bush said during his term, he's a freakin scientist.
 
2014-09-17 12:45:49 PM  

MrBallou: ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]

Where does the line to punch him form?


I was infromed that it is in front of this form.
 
2014-09-17 12:48:48 PM  

Geotpf: AurizenDarkstar: Based on Geotpf is saying, we can disregard everything that NDT has said due to his being wrong on a misquotation, right?

No, I'm saying that his job is to show the general public the truth (about science), and casually lying (on multiple occasions) hurts his ability to be seen as an honest broker of the truth.


I see that you have no problem just assuming that he is lying. You cannot even entertain the idea that he might have just been mistaken or remembering the specifics incorrectly. He's not infallible, he's a human being and human beings make mistakes. Is not even a big mistake. I understand that you and others have an axe to grind. You hate the man because he champions science instead of superstition. It makes you look small and petty, but if that's all you have than run with it right.
 
2014-09-17 12:51:37 PM  

Chummer45: You're presuming that this right wing hack is correct that NDGT is out there "lying and making stuff up."


I have yet to see anyone show us where Bush said anything to the effect of Our God is the God who named the stars' within a week of 9/11.  If you can provide that citation, then I'll agree that this author is a hack. If he is correct, then it should be pretty easy to find.

Minus that proof, it appears that this author is correct and that the entire premise of NDGT's rant regarding Bush's 'us v. them' division has a foundation of quicksand.
 
2014-09-17 12:52:08 PM  
I read this thinking, "who the fark doesn't like NDT"? I have watched the whole video from The Amazing Meeting that this guy is picking on in his article, and Tyson himself called that talk "Brain Droppings".  The presentation the NDT gave is more of comedy routine than science talk (if you can't tell from the title). For those of you who only know NDT from Cosmos he is actually funnier than many comedians, and much like the stories that comedians tell to set up jokes aren't researched to see whether or not they are true, I never thought anyone would actually research his jury duty story. He simply tells the story to illustrate a larger point about the importance of science and mathematical literacy.  Honestly, I always assumed from the get-go that it was just supposed to be a funny way to make a point, and not a factual accounting of a story that really happened.  If you haven't seen the full video I recommend watching it on youtube and then this article will seem like a guy fact-checking Louis C.K.
 
2014-09-17 12:53:10 PM  

Jackson Herring: Shakin_Haitian: Has anyone gone through all Bush's speeches yet or are we taking a known propagandist at his word that NdGT got some shiat wrong?

bush definitely said it, but Science Person had the context wrong

therefore he lied, bald eagles cried, etc


Why does no one think of the eagles?
 
2014-09-17 12:54:33 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: The very punchable author's face:
[img.fark.net image 390x412]


Why do conservative "intellectuals" always look like this guy?  (It's like they're all the spiritual descendents of Frank Burns from MASH)
 
2014-09-17 12:54:44 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: You're presuming that this right wing hack is correct that NDGT is out there "lying and making stuff up."

I have yet to see anyone show us where Bush said anything to the effect of Our God is the God who named the stars' within a week of 9/11.  If you can provide that citation, then I'll agree that this author is a hack. If he is correct, then it should be pretty easy to find.

Minus that proof, it appears that this author is correct and that the entire premise of NDGT's rant regarding Bush's 'us v. them' division has a foundation of quicksand.



I just find it amusing that you're trying to argue that NDGT is a hack based on allegations in an article written by a known hack.
 
2014-09-17 12:57:10 PM  

paganj: Is not even a big mistake


On a public stage, when you use it to create an argument in which to bash someone you don't like with, you have to be prepared to get called out over it.
 
2014-09-17 12:57:22 PM  

WillJM8528: I read this thinking, "who the fark doesn't like NDT"? I have watched the whole video from The Amazing Meeting that this guy is picking on in his article, and Tyson himself called that talk "Brain Droppings".  The presentation the NDT gave is more of comedy routine than science talk (if you can't tell from the title). For those of you who only know NDT from Cosmos he is actually funnier than many comedians, and much like the stories that comedians tell to set up jokes aren't researched to see whether or not they are true, I never thought anyone would actually research his jury duty story. He simply tells the story to illustrate a larger point about the importance of science and mathematical literacy.  Honestly, I always assumed from the get-go that it was just supposed to be a funny way to make a point, and not a factual accounting of a story that really happened.  If you haven't seen the full video I recommend watching it on youtube and then this article will seem like a guy fact-checking Louis C.K.



He's dangerous to the right wing, because he has been effective at educating people about basic science, which exposes the ignorance of many of the right wing's positions.  That's why you have the trolls in this thread ready to jump all over him based on a shiatty article written by a known right wing hack.
 
2014-09-17 12:57:45 PM  

NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick


Keep sucking the rightwing dick you insane person.  Well, now that you've said it so forthrightly it must be true (religious people are such dickheads, amirite?)
 
2014-09-17 1:00:44 PM  

Chummer45: I just find it amusing that you're trying to argue that NDGT is a hack based on allegations in an article written by a known hack.


The trait of a hack is to use lies in order to make a political point about those you don't like.

I personally like NDGT's show, but he should keep out of topics that he apparently has little knowledge of.
 
2014-09-17 1:02:28 PM  
Awww, Republicans.  When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger.  Problem with NDT is they know he's 100% right and NDT will cause the end of all rightwing thought if you gave him enough time.  Why do you think they all want to keep their kids away from reality as long as possible (until they've properly brainwashed their brats)?    It's the same old story with these sad, frightened human beings (if you can call them that).
 
2014-09-17 1:03:43 PM  
The beauty of an ad hom like this is that it is pleasing to both the Jesus Dinosaur Riders and Mountaintop Removal Mining For Freedom wings of the party.
 
2014-09-17 1:04:17 PM  

Chummer45: WillJM8528: I read this thinking, "who the fark doesn't like NDT"? I have watched the whole video from The Amazing Meeting that this guy is picking on in his article, and Tyson himself called that talk "Brain Droppings".  The presentation the NDT gave is more of comedy routine than science talk (if you can't tell from the title). For those of you who only know NDT from Cosmos he is actually funnier than many comedians, and much like the stories that comedians tell to set up jokes aren't researched to see whether or not they are true, I never thought anyone would actually research his jury duty story. He simply tells the story to illustrate a larger point about the importance of science and mathematical literacy.  Honestly, I always assumed from the get-go that it was just supposed to be a funny way to make a point, and not a factual accounting of a story that really happened.  If you haven't seen the full video I recommend watching it on youtube and then this article will seem like a guy fact-checking Louis C.K.


He's dangerous to the right wing, because he has been effective at educating people about basic science, which exposes the ignorance of many of the right wing's positions.  That's why you have the trolls in this thread ready to jump all over him based on a shiatty article written by a known right wing hack.


And it's over the weak kind of shiat they tolerate--no, that they expect--from the rulers they prostrate themselves before.
 
2014-09-17 1:05:34 PM  
Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't "making it up." Maybe he's just remembering wrong. These are, after all, very minor details.

Now I can see why a right-wing pundit would assume he's deliberately making it up (even though there would be no real need to) - projection. This is basically all they do.
 
F42
2014-09-17 1:05:40 PM  

LucklessWonder: black scienceman: the next generation


He would inverse the polarity and strike out with a hottie.
 
2014-09-17 1:06:26 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: I just find it amusing that you're trying to argue that NDGT is a hack based on allegations in an article written by a known hack.

The trait of a hack is to use lies in order to make a political point about those you don't like.

I personally like NDGT's show, but he should keep out of topics that he apparently has little knowledge of.



Go concern troll some other thread.
 
2014-09-17 1:06:39 PM  

PaulRB: When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger.


Of course when the message is based in lies, it is pretty obvious the many will bash both the message and messenger.  This action is logical, regardless  of what side of the aisle you reside.
 
2014-09-17 1:09:00 PM  

PaulRB: Awww, Republicans.  When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger.  Problem with NDT is they know he's 100% right and NDT will cause the end of all rightwing thought if you gave him enough time.  Why do you think they all want to keep their kids away from reality as long as possible coontil they've properly brainwashed their brats)?    It's the same old story with these sad, frightened human beings (if you can call them that).



You can see this in practice with the Texas Board of Education.  They all but told textbook companies to put jesus riding dinosaurs in their textbooks in an effort to brainwash students with bullshiat right wing propaganda.
 
2014-09-17 1:09:35 PM  

Chummer45: Go concern troll some other thread.


Sure, just after you go exit to another thread to white night another lib that got caught lying.
 
2014-09-17 1:10:57 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Ben Domenech

Benjamin Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist and writes The Transom, a daily subscription newsletter for political insiders. Domenech also serves as a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, specializing in health care and entitlement policy. He previously worked as speechwriter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, and as chief speechwriter for U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Domenech is also editor in chief of The City, an academic journal on faith and culture; and co-host of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning podcast focused on politics, policy, and the marketplace. He co-founded Redstate and appears regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, and The Blaze. He lives in Virginia. Email him at ben[[nospam-﹫-backwards] image 7x13]tsilaredefeht[* image 7x13]com

After initially denying the plagiarism allegations, Domenech apolgized, writing in a RedState post entitled "Contrition," that "[t]here is no excuse for this.... I hope that nothing I've done as a teenager or in my professional life will reflect badly on the movement and principles I believe in."[31]

More recently, Domenech was involved in a journalism scandal that resulted in the removal of his work from The Washington Examiner and the Huffington Post when it was disclosed that Domenech received $36,000 from Joshua Trevino, a conservative pundit and lobbbyist, to write favorable opinion pieces about the government of Malaysia without disclosing the relationship. The payments came to light when Trevino registered as a foreign agent of the Malaysian government.[32]


We, of course this douche is religious kook.  (never mind his connections to all things rightwing) Who woulda guessed?
 
2014-09-17 1:12:39 PM  

Geotpf: The author is showing a pattern where Tyson makes stuff up out of thin air. That does hurt his overall credibility and message severely, even if you don't want to think so because you agree with his message. If he makes up the little crap, how can you trust him on the big picture?


Tyson's inaccurate quotes are the brown M&Ms in his Van Halen tour rider!
 
2014-09-17 1:13:31 PM  

HeadLever: PaulRB: When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger.

Of course when the message is based in lies, it is pretty obvious the many will bash both the message and messenger.  This action is logical, regardless  of what side of the aisle you reside.


Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.
 
2014-09-17 1:13:57 PM  

Elegy: HeartBurnKid: Really? That's the attitude we're going with?

"Who cares about the proof, I like what he says so it's OK."

SCIENCE!

No, the attitude we're going with is "seeing the forest for the trees".  Mr. Degrasse-Tyson misquoted Bush. BFD. The quote was really not the focus of the speech.  It's stupid nitpicky bullshiat designed to distract from the matter at hand.

It's like when people get all huffy and say "Well, Sarah Palin never actually said she could see Russia from her house."  No shiat, Sherlock.  She said that living in a state that's close to Russia made her a foreign policy expert.  The "I can see Russia from my house!" line was meant to mock her for that.


So, like I said - we're apparently going with "I like what he's saying so it doesn't matter if he's making stuff up."

Fark: where fact checking cited sources is considered "nitpicky bullshiat."

Here's how it works when rational adults consider things like "facts," "evidence," and "quotations" : if you are fact checked on the little things in your writing, or speeches, or academic writings, and it's discovered that you're making up the little things, then it automatically calls into question the entire point you are trying to make. Making shiat up undercuts the credibility of your entire argument - which is why it's generally considered a no-no, as well as against every rule of professional conduct ever.

NDT was using these "direct quotes" as evidence to support his point that journalists and politicians don't understand science. You seriously don't see the problem here?

I suspect you actually do, and you just want to give NDT a pass because you agree with what he is saying.

The really sad thing here is that the little shiatworm that authored TFA was 100% correct: there was absolutely, 100% NO DAMN REASON to make anything up. There are a plethora of examples out there of politicians and journalists that very publicly don't understand science. Making shiat up in this case is beyond lazy; I w ...


That is a lot of words to describe the chronic pain in your posterior.
 
2014-09-17 1:17:19 PM  
The Republican party needs Americans afraid and ignorant in order to remain relevant.  Thus, they attack people like Neil Tyson.

The fact that they're attacking him is all the proof you need to know how they fear his effectiveness.
 
2014-09-17 1:17:42 PM  

HeadLever: PaulRB: When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger.

Of course when the message is based in lies, it is pretty obvious the many will bash both the message and messenger.  This action is logical, regardless  of what side of the aisle you reside.


So, science  is the big lie?  Because, in the article, all this author is talking about are quotes that NDT had gotten wrong. (in the context of a humorous discussion.)  Yes, he should check his facts a little closer when writing his story/speech.  Undoubtedly, he'll make adjustments when the facts are pointed out.  It's what scientists do.  Can the same thing be said of religious nuts, right wing cranks, Fox News, etc etc?  (since none of them are scientists and everyone of them has lies to push)
 
2014-09-17 1:18:45 PM  
The author is butthurt now over a speech that was made in 2008.  Tyson really must have struck a nerve.
 
2014-09-17 1:18:53 PM  

SquiggsIN: By the time he would've been promoted to a 3-solids full CMDR he wouldn't have had the VISOR. He was given the implants long before that would've happened.


Implants are racist and a plot to destroy visor culture.
 
2014-09-17 1:20:53 PM  

Infernalist: The Republican party needs Americans afraid and ignorant in order to remain relevant.  Thus, they attack people like Neil Tyson.

The fact that they're attacking him is all the proof you need to know how they fear his effectiveness.


"It's OK that I can't follow what the hell Tyson is talking about, because a right-wing hack once said he misquoted people, so Jesus Bootstraps".

Take that, evolution!
 
2014-09-17 1:21:05 PM  

HeadLever: another lib


He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?  The nerve of that guy.
 
2014-09-17 1:21:55 PM  

menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.



That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.
 
2014-09-17 1:23:43 PM  

PaulRB: So, science  is the big lie?


?

No, saying that Bush said X in order to argue a specific political point is the apparent lie.  I don't have a problem with his science at all.
 
2014-09-17 1:25:21 PM  

HeadLever: menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.


That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


Oh, I get it now!  You actually believe Bush was the "Great Uniter", don't you?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2014-09-17 1:26:54 PM  

Fart_Machine: He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?


If that is his motivation, that is fine by me.  Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me. However, being a liberal that promotes science but uses lies to make a political point will likely get your error called out.  I may not have any issue with your 'promotes science' part, but I'll likely have an issue with that second part.
 
2014-09-17 1:27:56 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: Go concern troll some other thread.

Sure, just after you go exit to another thread to white night another lib that got caught lying.


Ahem, "White Knight"
 
2014-09-17 1:30:31 PM  

HeadLever: menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.


That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.



On the other hand, it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.
 
2014-09-17 1:30:34 PM  

sugardave: You actually believe Bush was the "Great Uniter", don't you?


quizzicaldog.jpg
 
2014-09-17 1:31:37 PM  

Wooly Bully: Elegy: The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain

Well you got one thing right in all of that typing.

The main thing you got completely wrong is that Tyson's inaccurate quotation casts doubt on his overall message. That's what this idiot blogger wants people to believe, of course, but it's pretty obvious why he's doing it, and it isn't his interest in accuracy.


Not really. Or at least, not in these specific article.

The author himself agrees that journalists and politicians often get science wrong, but making shiat up out of thin air undercuts NDT's reliability.

I don't think I remember anything in the article about NDT being wrong overall, but I might be wrong. It's NDT's supporters in this thread that seem to be making that leap, reflexively and defensively.
 
2014-09-17 1:34:56 PM  

Elegy: Wooly Bully: Elegy: The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain

Well you got one thing right in all of that typing.

The main thing you got completely wrong is that Tyson's inaccurate quotation casts doubt on his overall message. That's what this idiot blogger wants people to believe, of course, but it's pretty obvious why he's doing it, and it isn't his interest in accuracy.

Not really. Or at least, not in these specific article.

The author himself agrees that journalists and politicians often get science wrong, but making shiat up out of thin air undercuts NDT's reliability.

I don't think I remember anything in the article about NDT being wrong overall, but I might be wrong. It's NDT's supporters in this thread that seem to be making that leap, reflexively and defensively.



Tell me again about how this right wing hack truly just wants to help NDGT so that he doesn't hurt his credibility with the public.

I guess I'm not surprised that a concern trolling article by a right wing hack has spawned a thread chock full of concern trolling.
 
2014-09-17 1:35:37 PM  

Chummer45: it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.


Me?  Liberal?  No.

Agreeing with a noted liberal on certain topics regarding science does not make me liberal at all.  I just like science.
 
2014-09-17 1:38:59 PM  

HeadLever: PaulRB: So, science  is the big lie?

?

No, saying that Bush said X in order to argue a specific political point is the apparent lie.  I don't have a problem with his science at all.


NDT has been giving his various science related speeches/talks for something like 15 years now (long before Cosmos).  I've seen a number of them and I've noticed a few variations in his talks that would include inconsistencies.  My conclusion is, that he's human (obviously) and most of these talks are given relatively off the cuff with q&a portions (it's the professor in him).  I'm guessing some of these stories have morphed a bit (over time).  It proves that you shouldn't entirely rely on your memory (even the smartest amongst us).   I wouldn't count any of these as lies but I guess some others, who would like to hate on NDT, would. (not saying you)
 
2014-09-17 1:39:14 PM  

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.
 
2014-09-17 1:43:34 PM  

HeadLever: It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.


You're concerned that Tyson's story telling employs truth bending for dramatic effect and you feel that it needs to be called out?
 
2014-09-17 1:43:39 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.


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?
 
2014-09-17 1:44:07 PM  

Garet Garrett: 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.


So you're saying that you're a liberal?
 
2014-09-17 1:44:11 PM  
Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse
 
2014-09-17 1:44:38 PM  

HeadLever: menschenfresser:
I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


If he got a quote wrong, then he got a quote wrong. If that can be proved to be factually correct, then there's no argument to be had. I'm not debating that. What I am standing up for is the body of his actual area of expertise - the scientific stuff. You and many others, including the author of this article, seem to be insinuating that because he got a quote wrong then everything else he says and has said is suspect because he has some kind of agenda. That's not supported by fact. If anyone produces evidence of his science being wrong, we'll change our minds based on the new evidence. However, that hasn't happened. As it stands right now, it's a 2+2=5 slippery slope argument.
 
2014-09-17 1:46:05 PM  

impaler: Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse


I think a few conservative Fark heads just exploded.
 
2014-09-17 1:48:17 PM  

impaler: Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse


That wacky liberal guy was also appointed by Bush to serve on commissions in 2001 and 2004 dealing with aerospace and space exploration policy.
 
2014-09-17 1:49:36 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.



I love that you managed to construct a straw man accusing NDGT of going around creating strawmen.  You should write a book called "the art of projection derping."
 
2014-09-17 1:50:26 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?

If that is his motivation, that is fine by me.  Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me. However, being a liberal that promotes science but uses lies to make a political point will likely get your error called out.  I may not have any issue with your 'promotes science' part, but I'll likely have an issue with that second part.


Again, what makes him a liberal?  According to the pundits and blogs it's because he stands for scientific principle vs religious dogma.
 
2014-09-17 1:52:37 PM  

Fart_Machine: impaler: Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse

That wacky liberal guy was also appointed by Bush to serve on commissions in 2001 and 2004 dealing with aerospace and space exploration policy.



It's difficult for the right wing derposphere to imagine that a scientist could pursue their profession in a nonpartisan way.
 
2014-09-17 1:54:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: Fart_Machine: He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?

If that is his motivation, that is fine by me.  Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me. However, being a liberal that promotes science but uses lies to make a political point will likely get your error called out.  I may not have any issue with your 'promotes science' part, but I'll likely have an issue with that second part.

Again, what makes him a liberal?  According to the pundits and blogs it's because he stands for scientific principle vs religious dogma.



It's because he says things like global warming is real, and then criticizes the (primarily republican) politicians for denying basic science and being completely irresponsible when it comes to climate policy.

If you're steeped in the Brietbart world, often times criticizing republican dogma = you're a flaming liberal
 
2014-09-17 1:55:03 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: another lib

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


As we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias.
 
2014-09-17 1:59:01 PM  

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.
 
2014-09-17 2:00:15 PM  

NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.

Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.


You obviously don't remember the original Cosmos because it was political as hell - advocating for Carbon reduction and chiding those would-be Conquerors (Nixon in his time, Bush in ours).

I'd also suggest that between the original Cosmos and C:ASTO, things have gotten a bit worse. Reliigion has an absymal track record regarding how it treats new data from science, and the modern interpirtation of many of the people who get to make decisions is that they're equally well and good and listen to everything. Well that's bull.

ALL kids should question their pastors, not to mention their parents, teachers, coaches and any other adult they meet. Respect should be earned not granted. Fark Exodus 20:12.
 
2014-09-17 2:01:08 PM  

Chummer45: I love that you managed to construct a straw man accusing NDGT of going around creating strawmen.


I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.  Your highlighted sentence certainly isn't one.
 
2014-09-17 2:03:10 PM  
ohmygodwhothehellcares.jpg
 
2014-09-17 2:03:20 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.



You're right - I definitely don't know what a straw man argument is.
 
2014-09-17 2:04:00 PM  

NickelP: Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that.


What the fark did you watch?  Not the same series I did, apparently.  It is all of those things.  The small (undeniably accurate) digs at dogma were few and far between, and always on topic.

Also, Sagan's wife was a major contributor to the series, so your point about the new series diverging from Sagan's vision is kind of off-base.
 
2014-09-17 2:08:59 PM  

Chummer45: 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.


You're right - I definitely don't know what a straw man argument is.


Forget it he's rolling.
 
2014-09-17 2:12:58 PM  

Geotpf: And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.


Ayep.

Geotpf: He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.


I'd not go that far; more that Tyson is looking foolish for exhibiting the exact same sort of imperfect recall as other humans -- who he's called out on.

For myself, I think the ideal approach for Tyson would be to own up and then run with the theme.
And possibly about how humans need to get used to fallible "feet of clay" heroes, and heroes need to get used to having their imperfections highlighted.
 
2014-09-17 2:15:45 PM  
Unfortunately, to understand the trolling in this thread we have to first achieve a greater understanding of what right wingers actually believe.  It is commonly believed on the right that climate science is not valid, and in reality is just a conspiracy among climate scientists designed to scare governments into giving them more grant money.  The scientists are working in concert with liberals, who want to enact climate legislation as part of an effort to create a socialist world government that abandons the free enterprise system.  Therefore, when he publicly speaks about climate science, NDGT is acting as an agent of the liberals trying to impose socialism on America and ruin the economy.

I really wish I was making this shiat up.  But this mainstream thinking on the right regarding climate change, and it explains perfectly why there are so many shiat stirrers in this thread blathering on and on about how NDGT is a liberal hack, etc:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html
 
2014-09-17 2:17:05 PM  

impaler: Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't "making it up." Maybe he's just remembering wrong. These are, after all, very minor details.
Now I can see why a right-wing pundit would assume he's deliberately making it up (even though there would be no real need to) - projection. This is basically all they do.


Also seems to deserve repeating.
 
2014-09-17 2:17:39 PM  

Chummer45: Unfortunately, to understand the trolling in this thread we have to first achieve a greater understanding of what right wingers actually believe.  It is commonly believed on the right that climate science is not valid, and in reality is just a conspiracy among climate scientists designed to scare governments into giving them more grant money.  The scientists are working in concert with liberals, who want to enact climate legislation as part of an effort to create a socialist world government that abandons the free enterprise system.  Therefore, when he publicly speaks about climate science, NDGT is acting as an agent of the liberals trying to impose socialism on America and ruin the economy.

I really wish I was making this shiat up.  But this mainstream thinking on the right regarding climate change, and it explains perfectly why there are so many shiat stirrers in this thread blathering on and on about how NDGT is a liberal hack, etc:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html


Back Door Socialism would make a great porn title.
 
2014-09-17 2:19:09 PM  

ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.


He was.  Agreed
 
2014-09-17 2:20:51 PM  

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: "I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about...


Whoa, hold on a sec....who the fark listens to a Chris Hardwick podcast?
 
2014-09-17 2:21:14 PM  

abb3w: Geotpf: And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.

Ayep.

Geotpf: He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.

I'd not go that far; more that Tyson is looking foolish for exhibiting the exact same sort of imperfect recall as other humans -- who he's called out on.

For myself, I think the ideal approach for Tyson would be to own up and then run with the theme.
And possibly about how humans need to get used to fallible "feet of clay" heroes, and heroes need to get used to having their imperfections highlighted.



Um... if you watch cosmos he frequently points out that scientists get stuff wrong all the time, and don't purport to have all the answers.  But he emphasizes that the key to science is that it is proven wrong by applying scientific principles.

For political reasons, people on the right tend to conflate the idea that science isn't perfect with the notion that science is wrong about specific things that are not in any way controversial in the scientific community (but which conservatives reject for political or religious reasons), such as evolution, or human caused climate change.
 
2014-09-17 2:24:17 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.

He was.  Agreed



Bush also at least didn't deny climate science.  But as with many things involving the Bush administration, his actual policies in this regard were terrible.
 
2014-09-17 2:34:47 PM  

amindtat: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: "I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about...

Whoa, hold on a sec....who the fark listens to a Chris Hardwick podcast?


I know I shouldn't admit this in public, but I find Chris Hardwick kinda attractive.
 
2014-09-17 2:35:19 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.


That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


On the other hand, it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.


How did you get him pretending to be a liberal out of that?
 
2014-09-17 2:45:58 PM  

I alone am best: Chummer45: HeadLever: menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.


That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


On the other hand, it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.

How did you get him pretending to be a liberal out of that?



It had more to do with this statement by Headlever:

"Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me."

I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.
 
2014-09-17 2:49:31 PM  

Chummer45: It had more to do with this statement by Headlever:

"Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me."

I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.


Yeah, I doubt it too. However, everyone on here knows he is not a liberal.
 
2014-09-17 2:51:43 PM  

menschenfresser: amindtat: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: "I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about...

Whoa, hold on a sec....who the fark listens to a Chris Hardwick podcast?

I know I shouldn't admit this in public, but I find Chris Hardwick kinda attractive.


Some of his podcasts (the Nerdist ones, not literally every other podcast on his channel) are funny.
 
2014-09-17 2:51:53 PM  

Chummer45: Reverend Monkeypants: ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.

He was.  Agreed


Bush also at least didn't deny climate science.  But as with many things involving the Bush administration, his actual policies in this regard were terrible.


I think my point was that it would have been really odd for him to have said anything anti-Muslim in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 given his obviously sincere belief that Islam had nothing to do with what happened and how hard he worked to express that belief. It's one thing to misremember a quote or context when it doesn't change your basic conclusion, but this particular misremembering could only come out this way if he were fundamentally wrong to start with.

Bush was many many things but anti-Muslim isn't he wasn't and deGrasse Tyson accusied him of being just that. That's sloppy and immature and frankly, it's slander. (Not in any legal sense.)

I haven't bothered to look at the other quotes but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he might have screwed up on those as well. The Bush one is so jarringly wrong it's not hard to believe he does, indeed, have a problem.
 
2014-09-17 2:54:52 PM  
I agree that Tyson should brush up on his quotes if he's gonna haul them out at public speaking engagements.

OTOH he does have a publishing history. Just checked Web of Science, out of 137 articles attributed to him, the following are the scientific ones. Looks like he published some influential articles early in his career, then went off to write columns for Natural History. But his name is on a few recent ones.

The faint-end slopes of galaxy luminosity functions in the COSMOS field  Astrophysical Journal v. 672 no.1 p.198-206 Jan 1. 2008. last author. Cited 11 times.

The cosmic evolution survey (cosmos): Overview   Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series v. 172 no.1 p.1-8 Sept. 2007. Last author. Cited 536 times.

COSMOS: Hubble space telescope observations   Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series v. 172 no.1 p.38-45 Sept. 2007. Last author. Cited 183 times

Optical light curves of the type Ia supernovae SN 1990N and SN 1991T (vol 115, pg 234, 1998)    Astronomical Journal v. 116 no.2 p. 1006-1007 Aug. 1998. Listed in last third of authors. Cited 5 times.

Optical light curves of the type Ia supernovae SN 1990N and SN 1991T   Astronomical Journal v. 115 no.1 p.234-236 Jan 1998. Listed in last third of authors. Cited 90 times. [not sure if citation above repeats this one, or just refers to it]


THE TYPE-IA SUPERNOVA 1989B IN NGC-3627 (M66) Astronomical Journal v. 108 no. 6 Dec. 1994 p.2223-2250. Last author.  Cited 122 times

THE EXPANDING PHOTOSPHERE METHOD APPLIED TO SN-1992AM AT CZ=14600KM-S  Astronomical Journal v.107 no.4 p.1444-& [sic] Apr 1994 Last author. Cited 45 times

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A MAJOR IMPACT ON URANUS IN THE PAST CENTURY  Astronomy & Astrophysics v.275 no.2 p. 630-634 Aug. 1993. First author. Cited 0 times.

AN EXPOSURE GUIDE FOR TAKING TWILIGHT FLATFIELDS WITH LARGE FORMAT CCDS   Astronomical Journal v.105 no.3 p.1206-1212 Mar 1993. First author. Cited 18 times.

A STUDY OF THE ABUNDANCE DISTRIBUTIONS ALONG THE MINOR AXIS OF THE GALACTIC BULGE  Book series: IAU SYMPOSIA issue 153 p. 333-335 1993. Cited 0 times.

RADIAL-VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION AND LINE STRENGTHS OF 33 CARBON STARS IN THE GALACTIC BULGE   Astrophysical Journal v. 367 no.2 p. 547-560 pt. 1. Feb. 1, 1991. First author. Cited 29 times.

BURSTING DWARF GALAXIES - IMPLICATIONS FOR LUMINOSITY FUNCTION, SPACE DENSITY, AND COSMOLOGICAL MASS DENSITY Astrophysical Journal v.329 no.2 p. 618-628 pt. 1 Jun 15 1988. First author. Cited 49 times.

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF GAS-RICH DWARF GALAXIES IN THE LYMAN-ALPHA FOREST   Astrophysical Journal v.329 no.2 p. L57-59 Pt. 2 June 15 1988. First author. Cited 50 times.
 
2014-09-17 3:07:21 PM  

Chummer45: Unfortunately, to understand the trolling in this thread we have to first achieve a greater understanding of what right wingers actually believe.  It is commonly believed on the right that climate science is not valid, and in reality is just a conspiracy among climate scientists designed to scare governments into giving them more grant money.  The scientists are working in concert with liberals, who want to enact climate legislation as part of an effort to create a socialist world government that abandons the free enterprise system.  Therefore, when he publicly speaks about climate science, NDGT is acting as an agent of the liberals trying to impose socialism on America and ruin the economy.

I really wish I was making this shiat up.  But this mainstream thinking on the right regarding climate change, and it explains perfectly why there are so many shiat stirrers in this thread blathering on and on about how NDGT is a liberal hack, etc:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html


"The Federalist" seems to be a never-ending font of right wing insanity and denial.
 
2014-09-17 3:08:11 PM  

I alone am best: Chummer45: It had more to do with this statement by Headlever:

"Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me."

I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.

Yeah, I doubt it too. However, everyone on here knows he is not a liberal.



True.  My underlying point was that he's just obviously concern trolling.
 
2014-09-17 3:09:04 PM  
I think he needs to sit down and swap stories with Sarah Palin.
 
2014-09-17 3:16:19 PM  

Chummer45: Tell me again about how this right wing hack truly just wants to help NDGT so that he doesn't hurt his credibility with the public.

I guess I'm not surprised that a concern trolling article by a right wing hack has spawned a thread chock full of concern trolling.


Tell me again where I said this right wing hack wanted to help NDT? Your reading comprehension sucks.

This guys motivations might be to undermine NDT specifically and science in favor of Jeebus. But hey, guess what? In the context of the 4 articles I read, he was smart enough not to make that leap of logic once.

Really, I could give a shiat if the guy goes home and jerks it to his Jeebus statue every night, or dresses in ladies underwear, or has 4 sister-wives. I care that he presented direct quotes and photos of slides from NGD, and laid out the evidence that NGD was referencing things that never happened in a clear and logical manner (he did l), and perhaps even offered some alternative examples that could have been used instead (he did).

As presented, the fact seem to be on his side: he makes a good case, with evidence like lexis-nexus searchers, that go a ways towards providing evidence that this shiat never happened. It's poor conduct on NGD's part to present them as if they did, period.

No one ever said this invalidates science, or the point that politicians and journalists don't understand science - at least not the author of the article or any rational, thinking adult that read this piece. Hell, the guy that wrote the article admitted as much himself that politicians and journalists are dumb as dirt when it comes to science, so he conceded NDT's point to him. It's shiatty partisanship to excuse him on it because of politics, period. At the very least he was pretty damn irresponsible not verifying his examples.

It's the idiots in this thread that are throwing up the "NDT got some examples wrong therefore dinosaurs riding Jeebus" strawmen. Partisanship is disgusting - and the author of TFA at least managed to keep his out of his damn article, unlike most of the commenters here like yourself.
 
2014-09-17 3:16:43 PM  

PaulRB: NDT has been giving his various science related speeches/talks for something like 15 years now (long before Cosmos).  I've seen a number of them and I've noticed a few variations in his talks that would include inconsistencies.  My conclusion is, that he's human (obviously) and most of these talks are given relatively off the cuff with q&a portions (it's the professor in him).  I'm guessing some of these stories have morphed a bit (over time).  It proves that you shouldn't entirely rely on your memory (even the smartest amongst us).   I wouldn't count any of these as lies but I guess some others, who would like to hate on NDT, would. (not saying you)


Yeah, I can agree with most of that.  Obviously, I don't agree with painting this obvious 'misstatement' as just a ho-hum mistake, but I agree that we can  all be subjected to allowing our politics get in the way of the truth sometimes.

If I make the same kind of bogus statement here on Fark, you can bet that there would be an appropriate dogpile.
 
2014-09-17 3:21:26 PM  

Headso: You're concerned that Tyson's story telling political argument employs truth bending for dramatic effect for thesupporting premise and you feel that it needs to be called out?


Yeah, anytime one uses an obvious lie to support a political argument, you can be certain that someone will be there to call it out.

/Rightfully so
 
2014-09-17 3:24:25 PM  

Chummer45: I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.


It depends.  I don't hate liberals.  I may not agree with them on too many issues, but if I feel like they are doing something worth, I'll give credit where credit is due.  Promoting science is always good in my book.
 
2014-09-17 3:27:58 PM  
Those comments are...so...just...durrrr. I'm sure conservative spirits were buoyed over the past few days with the news that ISIS is banning science and social studies in the captured territories. Just someone else to look up to for ideology.
 
2014-09-17 3:29:14 PM  

Egalitarian: I agree that Tyson should brush up on his quotes if he's gonna haul them out at public speaking engagements.

OTOH he does have a publishing history. Just checked Web of Science, out of 137 articles attributed to him, the following are the scientific ones. Looks like he published some influential articles early in his career, then went off to write columns for Natural History. But his name is on a few recent ones.


Wow. That's... Not that impressive, actually. His latest work tends to be as last author - often that's graduate students that want a big name on their work. His sole and first author stuff was done 20 years ago and rarely cited.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - some people hate the treadmill and the publications arms race that academic research has become. It's certainly not for everyone, and he obviously enjoys outreach and education more. All well and good.

But the way everyone talks about him and his general reputation, I had it in my head that he was more of a Hawking or Penrose type - research first, books for the public second.

Huh.
 
2014-09-17 3:40:34 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: You're concerned that Tyson's story telling political argument employs truth bending for dramatic effect for thesupporting premise and you feel that it needs to be called out?

Yeah, anytime one uses an obvious lie to support a political argument, you can be certain that someone will be there to call it out.

/Rightfully so


It's not an obvious lie though, it isn't even a departure from what the people he is talking about typically say which makes me believe it's just a guy bending the truth for effect as people who tell stories and speak publicly typically do or he could have even misremembered the quote or was told the story by someone he respected and he's just relaying it. For some reason this minutia is very concerning to the pundit/pathological liar writing this editorial and yourself. IMO it's not but I don't have some weird anti-science agenda.
 
2014-09-17 3:43:23 PM  

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.
 
2014-09-17 3:49:19 PM  

Headso: HeadLever: Headso: You're concerned that Tyson's story telling political argument employs truth bending for dramatic effect for thesupporting premise and you feel that it needs to be called out?

Yeah, anytime one uses an obvious lie to support a political argument, you can be certain that someone will be there to call it out.

/Rightfully so

It's not an obvious lie though, it isn't even a departure from what the people he is talking about typically say which makes me believe it's just a guy bending the truth for effect as people who tell stories and speak publicly typically do or he could have even misremembered the quote or was told the story by someone he respected and he's just relaying it. For some reason this minutia is very concerning to the pundit/pathological liar writing this editorial and yourself. IMO it's not but I don't have some weird anti-science agenda.



My favorite part of the article might be this:

Tyson butchered the quote. He butchered the date. He butchered the context. He butchered the implication. And he butchered the biblical allusion, which was to the prophet Isaiah, not the book of Genesis (you can tell Bush was alluding to Isaiah because he explicitly said he was referencing Isaiah).
Bush's statement about the Creator had nothing to do with making "us" look better than "them": it was an attempt to comfort the families who lost loved ones in the crash. They weren't nameless creatures who passed anonymously; their ultimate Creator, the one who knit them together in their mothers' wombs, mourned them by name. Heck, that same Creator even gave up his one and only Son that those lost souls might one day be reconciled to God through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. It was a message of hope and unity, not a message of division authored in the fog of war.



Mr. Concern troll hack seems to be most offended by the fact that Tyson failed to appreciate that Bush was just being an awesome christian praising the christian God as he should. He also seems upset that Tyson didn't appreciate the "fact" that God knits together fetuses in their mothers' wombs.  Also, he's indirectly accusing Tyson of not caring about the people who died.

If we want to talk about credibility and ulterior motives, perhaps the place to start would be analyzing the author of this stupid blog post.
 
2014-09-17 3:52:22 PM  
i.imgbox.comView Full Size


Are you sure we haven't been invaded by aliens?
 
2014-09-17 4:04:03 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 4:04:38 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 4:07:46 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 4:15:28 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 4:19:09 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 4:20:27 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 4:21:26 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 4:24:33 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 4:25:38 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 4:31:54 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 4:39:25 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 4:40:34 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 4:44:48 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 5:20:37 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 ly