Neil DeGrasse Tyson on morality of deniers

[westwall]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Those ?who cherry pick science simply don?t understand how? it works

When asked specifically about climate change, Tyson said that the deniers have the same “tools of science” as everyone else, they merely misuse them. “You are equipped and empowered with this cosmic perspective, achieved by the methods and tools of science, applied to the universe,” he said.

The question is, “are you going to be a good shepherd, or a bad shepherd? Are you going to use your wisdom to protect civilization, or will you go at it in a shortsighted enough way to either destroy it, or be complicit in its destruction? If you can’t bring your scientific knowledge to bear on those kinds of decisions, then why even waste your time?”

he went to Columbia, University of Texas, Harvard, etc...

discuss...

Morality is the purview of RELIGION....not SCIENCE. If he wishes to discuss science, that's great, but the second he brings morality into it, he has abandoned scientific enquiry.

 

[Amelia]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Those ?who cherry pick science simply don?t understand how? it works

When asked specifically about climate change, Tyson said that the deniers have the same “tools of science” as everyone else, they merely misuse them. “You are equipped and empowered with this cosmic perspective, achieved by the methods and tools of science, applied to the universe,” he said.

The question is, “are you going to be a good shepherd, or a bad shepherd? Are you going to use your wisdom to protect civilization, or will you go at it in a shortsighted enough way to either destroy it, or be complicit in its destruction? If you can’t bring your scientific knowledge to bear on those kinds of decisions, then why even waste your time?”

he went to Columbia, University of Texas, Harvard, etc...

discuss...

Morality is the purview of RELIGION....not SCIENCE. If he wishes to discuss science, that's great, but the second he brings morality into it, he has abandoned scientific enquiry.

First of all, I think it may be Dot who brought in the term "morality".

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a scientist discussing the responsible use of scientific knowledge.

Finally, morality exists apart from religion. Atheists can still have moral concerns without being required to entertain the notion of a God.

 

[flacaltenn]

all the anti-AGW *cough* "experts" on this board wouldn't last 15 seconds debating Neil

Not only would I last 5 minutes, I'd destroy him.

What he did that Dot Com Admires, is just bluster, not science.. Ask him what the temperature WILL BE in 2033... Love to see the matchup btwn Pred Fan and the tyson. Bluster dont mean shit in a real debate...

 

[Stephanie]

P.T. Barnum was right

sucker born every minute

that's all

 

[westwall]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Those ?who cherry pick science simply don?t understand how? it works


he went to Columbia, University of Texas, Harvard, etc...

discuss...

Morality is the purview of RELIGION....not SCIENCE. If he wishes to discuss science, that's great, but the second he brings morality into it, he has abandoned scientific enquiry.

First of all, I think it may be Dot who brought in the term "morality".

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a scientist discussing the responsible use of scientific knowledge.

Finally, morality exists apart from religion. Atheists can still have moral concerns without being required to entertain the notion of a God.

Morality is ephemeral, just like religion. Science, and scientific enquiry, is the pursuit of facts, and facts alone. Not "truth" which is a subset of morality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Those ?who cherry pick science simply don?t understand how? it works


he went to Columbia, University of Texas, Harvard, etc...

discuss...

Morality is the purview of RELIGION....not SCIENCE. If he wishes to discuss science, that's great, but the second he brings morality into it, he has abandoned scientific enquiry.

First of all, I think it may be Dot who brought in the term "morality".

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a scientist discussing the responsible use of scientific knowledge.

Finally, morality exists apart from religion. Atheists can still have moral concerns without being required to entertain the notion of a God.

Youre very right the scientists are allowed to opine on related morality issues.. But those are always opinions biased by their personal frames of view.. Which then makes them no more special than say a science deficient internet poster like Dotty..Moral opinions are biased by the entire frame of life references of the assertor.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What will be the temperature of the earth in 2030, Mr.Tyson?

 

[Amelia]

Morality is the purview of RELIGION....not SCIENCE. If he wishes to discuss science, that's great, but the second he brings morality into it, he has abandoned scientific enquiry.

First of all, I think it may be Dot who brought in the term "morality".

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a scientist discussing the responsible use of scientific knowledge.

Finally, morality exists apart from religion. Atheists can still have moral concerns without being required to entertain the notion of a God.

Morality is ephemeral, just like religion. Science, and scientific enquiry, is the pursuit of facts, and facts alone. Not "truth" which is a subset of morality.

Scientists are not required to divorce themselves from concern about whether people will acknowledge their findings and about the possible ramifications of people ignoring their findings. (Or the possible ramifications of people use their findings for ill, but that is another subject.)

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is perfectly legitimate for people who study the planet -- or planets -- and who live on said planet to discuss the future of the planet, especially when what they are learning could affect that future.


Dot used the word "morality". Tyson spoke of stewardship.

 

[PredFan]

all the anti-AGW *cough* "experts" on this board wouldn't last 15 seconds debating Neil

Not only would I last 5 minutes, I'd destroy him.

Have you seen a medical professional about these hallucinations?

I am a medical professional.

 

[PredFan]

all the anti-AGW *cough* "experts" on this board wouldn't last 15 seconds debating Neil

Not only would I last 5 minutes, I'd destroy him.

What he did that Dot Com Admires, is just bluster, not science.. Ask him what the temperature WILL BE in 2033... Love to see the matchup btwn Pred Fan and the tyson. Bluster dont mean shit in a real debate...

It would be easy. A lot of posters here at USMB have put up better arguments than that guy will. Just judging by the bull shit article he wrote.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

all the anti-AGW *cough* "experts" on this board wouldn't last 15 seconds debating Neil

Not only would I last 5 minutes, I'd destroy him.

Have you seen a medical professional about these hallucinations?

Where's your evidence?

The Pacific Ocean ate my warming?

 

[jc456]

all the anti-AGW *cough* "experts" on this board wouldn't last 15 seconds debating Neil

Not only would I last 5 minutes, I'd destroy him.

What he did that Dot Com Admires, is just bluster, not science.. Ask him what the temperature WILL BE in 2033... Love to see the matchup btwn Pred Fan and the tyson. Bluster dont mean shit in a real debate...

Ask him to explain why the models didn't match the observed temperatures for the last 15 years? And no matter his answer, the proof is that the science was wrong. WRONG!!!!! and he loses.

If you cant trust the models, then the models need adjusting, and if they need adjusting, then the theory had an error, that error is his loss.

 

[Stephanie]

Typical condescending globull warmer..

Dismiss others and beat his chest how HE is right...

This is how they walk over YOU to try and shut you up.... they'll claim this 97% so they can dismiss your concerns over things..

wake up

 

[westwall]

First of all, I think it may be Dot who brought in the term "morality".

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a scientist discussing the responsible use of scientific knowledge.

Finally, morality exists apart from religion. Atheists can still have moral concerns without being required to entertain the notion of a God.

Morality is ephemeral, just like religion. Science, and scientific enquiry, is the pursuit of facts, and facts alone. Not "truth" which is a subset of morality.

Scientists are not required to divorce themselves from concern about whether people will acknowledge their findings and about the possible ramifications of people ignoring their findings. (Or the possible ramifications of people use their findings for ill, but that is another subject.)

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is perfectly legitimate for people who study the planet -- or planets -- and who live on said planet to discuss the future of the planet, especially when what they are learning could affect that future.


Dot used the word "morality". Tyson spoke of stewardship.

Correct, science does not exist in a vacuum. That's why it MUST divorce itself from "morality". Personal biases lead to falsification of data, and the corruption of scientific enquiry to support a personal goal.

There are bad scientists everywhere, just like there are bad people. That's why the scientific method was developed, to control scientists with personal goals that are outside that of science in general.

It is telling that during the Napoleonic wars English scientists regularly travelled to Paris to confer with their French counterparts on scientific matters.

 

[Stephanie]

This is right up dots alley, she loves it when people and politicians look down on you and beat you down

it's a sickness

I never heard of the jerk and who gives a rats ass what he has to say

 

[Amelia]

Morality is ephemeral, just like religion. Science, and scientific enquiry, is the pursuit of facts, and facts alone. Not "truth" which is a subset of morality.

Scientists are not required to divorce themselves from concern about whether people will acknowledge their findings and about the possible ramifications of people ignoring their findings. (Or the possible ramifications of people use their findings for ill, but that is another subject.)

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is perfectly legitimate for people who study the planet -- or planets -- and who live on said planet to discuss the future of the planet, especially when what they are learning could affect that future.


Dot used the word "morality". Tyson spoke of stewardship.

Correct, science does not exist in a vacuum. That's why it MUST divorce itself from "morality". Personal biases lead to falsification of data, and the corruption of scientific enquiry to support a personal goal.

There are bad scientists everywhere, just like there are bad people. That's why the scientific method was developed, to control scientists with personal goals that are outside that of science in general.

It is telling that during the Napoleonic wars English scientists regularly travelled to Paris to confer with their French counterparts on scientific matters.

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

 

[westwall]

Scientists are not required to divorce themselves from concern about whether people will acknowledge their findings and about the possible ramifications of people ignoring their findings. (Or the possible ramifications of people use their findings for ill, but that is another subject.)

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is perfectly legitimate for people who study the planet -- or planets -- and who live on said planet to discuss the future of the planet, especially when what they are learning could affect that future.


Dot used the word "morality". Tyson spoke of stewardship.

Correct, science does not exist in a vacuum. That's why it MUST divorce itself from "morality". Personal biases lead to falsification of data, and the corruption of scientific enquiry to support a personal goal.

There are bad scientists everywhere, just like there are bad people. That's why the scientific method was developed, to control scientists with personal goals that are outside that of science in general.

It is telling that during the Napoleonic wars English scientists regularly travelled to Paris to confer with their French counterparts on scientific matters.

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

 

[Amelia]

Correct, science does not exist in a vacuum. That's why it MUST divorce itself from "morality". Personal biases lead to falsification of data, and the corruption of scientific enquiry to support a personal goal.

There are bad scientists everywhere, just like there are bad people. That's why the scientific method was developed, to control scientists with personal goals that are outside that of science in general.

It is telling that during the Napoleonic wars English scientists regularly travelled to Paris to confer with their French counterparts on scientific matters.

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

Even if I accepted that statement as fact, are you suggesting that Tyson is a political activist?

 

[flacaltenn]

Scientists aren't obligated to sit back and collect data and analyze and never act on their findings.

It is natural and acceptable for them to feel an impulse to help save the planet for future generations to enjoy. If they conclude that they have enough information to act on, then there is nothing wrong with them acting and encouraging others to do so too.

I agree, but when they cross over to political activism they lose their scientific blindness as it were. That's when bad science begins to occur. That's when eugenics and "final solutions" are passed from the horrible to the accepted norms of society.

Even if I accepted that statement as fact, are you suggesting that Tyson is a political activist?

I would.. Because he stepped over the line of advocating based on science to activism when his methodology is to ATTACK the opposition rather than convincingly promulgating the science.. His comments about "cosmic perspectives" and "good/bad shepards" are pretty nebulous actually.. Wasted an opportunity to put all those science credentials to work MAKING A SOLID case for the cause..

 

[mamooth]

The only chance any of denialist would have in any debate would be to Gish Gallop with everything they've got. That is, use the tactic pioneered by their spiritual allies the creationists -- spout complete bullshit so fast and so often that the rational people can't even hope to refute it within the alloted time. It's an old scam, few will let them try it anymore, and that enrages the denialists/creationists. We force them to write things down now, one idea at a time, so we can leisurely tear them apart.

In contrast, it's trivial to flummox denialists by simply asking them to explain the current heat flux imbalance and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation over the greenhouse gas absorption bands. You know, the smoking gun. Other than greenhouse gases, there are no viable explanations for why such a thing is happening.