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  
•       •       •

8290 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



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

 
2014-09-17 8:02:44 AM  
8 votes:

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 12:23:45 AM  
8 votes:
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 12:04:29 AM  
7 votes:
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 9:26:57 AM  
5 votes:

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 8:29:21 AM  
5 votes:
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 1:27:47 AM  
5 votes:
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 12:11:42 AM  
5 votes:
As opposed to the virtual Mt. Everest of bullsh*t conservatives make up?
 
2014-09-17 8:27:14 AM  
4 votes:

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 2:15:45 PM  
3 votes:
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 9:18:41 AM  
3 votes:
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 8:41:21 AM  
3 votes:
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 8:40:53 AM  
3 votes:

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 8:37:55 AM  
3 votes:
All I got out of that article was "Wah! The scary black man is smarter than me!"
 
2014-09-17 8:29:48 AM  
3 votes:
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 8:07:30 AM  
3 votes:
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 1:45:27 AM  
3 votes:

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


Where does the line to punch him form?
 
2014-09-17 5:44:22 PM  
2 votes:
NDGT's Cosmos doesn't pull any punches when explaining how religious rejection of science is a terrible and time honored tradition that goes back as far as human records go and continues to this day.

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

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

That said, being on the list of people the GOP hate with every ounce of their being is generally a pretty good sign you are doing something right.
 
2014-09-17 1:17:19 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:58:05 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:29:29 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:22:55 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:31:33 AM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:26:09 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:16:54 AM  
2 votes:

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 9:28:29 AM  
2 votes:

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 9:20:20 AM  
2 votes:

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 8:50:25 AM  
2 votes:
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 8:35:33 AM  
2 votes:

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 8:24:32 AM  
2 votes:

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 4:19:05 AM  
2 votes:
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 1:55:50 AM  
2 votes:
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 1:31:41 AM  
2 votes:
The very punchable author's face:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 12:25:59 AM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2014-09-18 3:14:37 AM  
1 vote:
It's possible that Tyson may have stumbled across this blog, which starts out by referencing a post Sept. 11 speech by George W. Bush and then segues into an article reprinted from a Christian blog. The point at which it changes to the reprinted article is a bit unclear without knowing the source material, especially considering that it not only quotes Bush but also paraphrases him.

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

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


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

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

Footnote [8]:

[8] Genesis 1:14

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

Do not take this to mean I agree with Davis's sentiment; although I think he's got this part right (Bush didn't say that), he can't really argue against Tyson's thesis. Davis's argument hinges on disproving only one detail of supporting information that can be easily replaced with many others that can be cited. If he could, he would discredit Tyson's thesis; however, he cannot, so instead attempts to disprove one detail and then pretend that Tyson's whole argument rests on that detail.
 
2014-09-17 4:44:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:43:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:21:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:16:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 2:51:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 2:21:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:59:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:54:32 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:05:34 PM  
1 vote:
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.
 
2014-09-17 1:02:28 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:45:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:40:01 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:27:03 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:56:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:55:25 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.comView Full Size


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

/Animated gif is too large
 
2014-09-17 11:42:38 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:41:53 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:35:15 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:27:29 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:09:40 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:50:17 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:38:51 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:37:02 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:24:09 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:21:41 AM  
1 vote:

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


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 10:18:39 AM  
1 vote:
If you base your whole argument on getting the facts right, you probably should make sure you get the facts right.
 
2014-09-17 10:13:28 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:46:31 AM  
1 vote:
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 9:42:30 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:32:05 AM  
1 vote:
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 9:31:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:28:15 AM  
1 vote:
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 9:19:03 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:18:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:17:54 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:04:49 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:59:00 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:58:24 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:57:06 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:52:48 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:51:52 AM  
1 vote:
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 8:49:04 AM  
1 vote:

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 8:47:23 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-09-17 8:45:59 AM  
1 vote:
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 8:44:57 AM  
1 vote:
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 8:43:42 AM  
1 vote:
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 8:40:32 AM  
1 vote:
I have been making crap up for years.  You go Neil!
 
2014-09-17 7:55:17 AM  
1 vote:
Is this one of those "We get it, he's black" moments?
 
2014-09-17 7:36:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 7:12:30 AM  
1 vote:
"Our god is the god who named the stars." - George W BushRAND PAUL
 
2014-09-17 2:28:14 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.