PDA

View Full Version : Nei DeGrasse Tyson schools Bill Maher re: anti-science liberals



BrianY
06-13-2016, 01:05 PM
Neil has a point...

From: http://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-science-1780648740




Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of **** Too (http://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-science-1780648740)



Every Friday night comedian Bill Maher puts on a show with an interesting mix of guests. But this past Friday, Maher repeated a claim he often makes that was finally smacked down by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Namely, Maher said that conservatives are consistently more anti-science than liberals. That’s bull****.

“Let’s not pretend that Democrats and Republicans equally deny science,” Maher said. But TV-scientist and friend of the show Neil DeGrasse Tyson quickly stepped in to correct Maher.

“Don’t be too high and mighty there,” Tyson said. “Because there are certain aspects of science denials that are squarely in the liberal left.”

Maher asked Tyson to elaborate.“I know one, but I don’t want to get into it,” Maher said.

What was “the one”? For viewers who are familiar with Maher’s bizarre belief that vaccines cause autism (they don’t (http://gizmodo.com/the-anti-vaccine-movement-should-be-ridiculed-because-1683258152)), we could guess what he was talking about. But the panelists said it out loud anyway.

“Vaccines!” everyone said in unison. Maher simply pointed and said, “Yes.”

Tyson went on to explain that liberals also tend to be the ones who consistently scare people about what they believe are the dangers of genetically modified organisms. He also rightly pointed out that liberals tend to be big believers in “alternative medicine.”

Maher has been a great advocate for climate science. But when it comes to health and medicine, he gives liberals a really bad name.

When Maher recently had “Dr.” Samir Chachoua on his show to discuss his treatment of Charlie Sheen’s HIV, I wanted to throw my remote through the TV screen. Not because he had an idiot on the show (idiots make for great TV), but because Maher was treating this person like everything he said made sense. As a reminder, Chachoua is the Australian “doctor” who recently treated Charlie Sheen in Mexico with bull**** natural remedies. Sheen later went back on his HIV medication. Maher challenged Chachoua on precisely zero of his assertions and furthered Chachoua’s quack medicine agenda (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/when-antivaccine-pseudoscience-isnt-enough-bill-maher-embraces-goat-milk-hiv-quackery/).

Anti-science Republicans really do need to pull their heads out of their asses. Climate change is real. The Earth isn’t 10,000 years old. Noah’s Ark is, at best, a good children’s story.

But liberals need to clean up their own house before they make blanket assertions about conservatives being the only anti-science assholes out there. And since Maher attests to being such a champion of rational thought, he really needs to wake up to the mountains of bull**** in his own backyard. The smell bleeds through my TV set every time he says the word “frankenfood” like a toddler who just learned a new curse word.

Norman Bernstein
06-13-2016, 01:16 PM
I fully agree with the C&P's perspective... and Bill Maher's anti-vaccine stance is truly reprehensible. The supposed connection between vaccines and autism, from what I read, just might be the most thoroughly debunked false story in the history of medicine... and the dangers of communicable diseases which vaccines prevent, are woefully understated and under-reported. I recently 'read' (via an audiobook) a series of lectures written by a prominent pediatric physician who related the story of what happened to a young girl whose parents refused to vaccinate.... and it was truly heartbreaking... I don't think I'd want to repeat the tale of pain and suffering that child went through, as a consequence of the complications of a disease her parents could have prevented.

Willin'
06-13-2016, 01:18 PM
My understanding and quite valid concern is that when Monsanto's GM crops spread by natural broadcast rather than intentional planting, Monsanto can come back through the courts and sue for patent infringement, threatening many innocent farmers' livelihoods.

Otherwise, I'm all for creating disease resistant strains.

Keith Wilson
06-13-2016, 01:30 PM
Damn right! The right certainly has no monopoly on idiocy.

Waddie
06-13-2016, 02:28 PM
"In terms of the question of who is more anti-science, my approach is this – you don’t get credit for being pro science for accepting an issue that is compatible with your ideology. Liberals acceptance of manmade global warming does not mean they are necessarily pro science, because this issue is right in line with their ideology (pro nature, anti corporate). Conservatives don’t get credit for being pro nuclear for the same reason.


Evidence for being pro science is when you accept a scientific consensus that conflicts with your ideology. You have to demonstrate that science comes before your ideology. "

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/liberal-vs-conservative-antiscience/

regards,
Waddie

Norman Bernstein
06-13-2016, 02:34 PM
"In terms of the question of who is more anti-science, my approach is this – you don’t get credit for being pro science for accepting an issue that is compatible with your ideology. Liberals acceptance of manmade global warming does not mean they are necessarily pro science, because this issue is right in line with their ideology (pro nature, anti corporate).

Let me get this straight: liberals cannot possibly be sincere about their global warming perspectives, because it coincides with their ideology... but conservatives don't let their ideology interfere with their views on science, so they're always sincere.....

....that's essentially what you're saying, right? Conservatives who disagree with the science of climate change are paying NO attention to ideology when they are global warming deniers?

Wow... talk about not being able to see past your own prejudices!


Evidence for being pro science is when you accept a scientific consensus that conflicts with your ideology.

Stupider words were never said before.... I simply CANNOT believe that you actually buy utterly RIDICULOUS argument!

The very notion that the sincerity of a belief in science is predicated on it being in conflict with one's ideology is......

...I can't even think of a WORD that clearly indicates how utterly DUMB that notion is!

Waddie
06-13-2016, 02:52 PM
I didn't say it, you dingleberry.... :) It's a quote; look at the quotation marks. I did add the BF. Or actually read the article. Or continue wallowing in your own prejudices.


Norman Bernstein; Stupider words were never said before.... I simply CANNOT believe that you actually buy utterly RIDICULOUS argument!
The very notion that the sincerity of a belief in science is predicated on it being in conflict with one's ideology is......
.I can't even think of a WORD that clearly indicates how utterly DUMB that notion is!

Once again, Norman....look for the quotation marks; they're the little double squiggles before and after a quote. BTW; why don't you write Novella and deGrasse and tell him (or them) just what you think of his opinions. After all, he's only a scientist; what does he know about science denial........

regards,
Waddie

Norman Bernstein
06-13-2016, 02:55 PM
I didn't say it, you dingleberry.... :) It's a quote; look at the quotation marks.I see... you posted it because you DISAGREED with it? Sorry, but excuse me while I laugh.

I didn't say that YOU said it (except to presume that you agreed with it, since you were the one who posted it).... I attacked the statements, not you.

BrianY
06-13-2016, 02:57 PM
what if my ideology is that scientific consensus is an strong indicator of the validity of a scientific theory? Do I have to find and believe a conflicting scientific consensus - one that says that scientific consensus is NOT an strong indicator of the validity of a scientific theory - in order to prove that I am "pro science"? Is that even possible?

I think what Waddie's post is trying to say is that someone who believes in the validity of the scientific method and the worth of scientific consensus as an indicator of likelihood must be willing to follow where the facts and consensus leads even if it leads to a position that conflicts with other beliefs they might have. I have no argument with that, except to note that it assumes that it is possible for humans to evaluate facts and evidence without bias. I think there are very few people in the world who can do that, even among the most hardcore scientists.

IMO the test of someone who claims to be "pro-science" is that they believe that the scientific method is the best way to understand the universe, they are willing and able to have their preconceptions and assumptions challenged by evidence, that they are open to having their beliefs changed as new evidence is discovered and that they are able to allow objective facts and scientific consensus to outweigh superstition and emotion in many (but not, by any means, all) decision-making processes.

Waddie
06-13-2016, 02:58 PM
I see... you posted it because you DISAGREED with it? Sorry, but excuse me while I laugh.

I didn't say that YOU said it (except to presume that you agreed with it, since you were the one who posted it).... I attacked the statements, not you.


Do I think that the test of scientific belief is to believe in science even when it disagrees with your core beliefs. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good measurement. You got a better one? Man up; let's hear it.

regards,
Waddie

PS. Brian, you're saying the same thing, just more wordy.

Norman Bernstein
06-13-2016, 03:01 PM
Do I think that the test of scientific belief is to believe in science even when it disagrees with your core beliefs. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good measurement.

...and when one's scientific beliefs DO coincide with their core beliefs, those beliefs are somehow less sincere? THAT is the absurd, stupid, and ridiculous part of the quote.... it's very nearly as stupid as SB's 'virtue signalling' crap.

ljb5
06-13-2016, 03:04 PM
Do I think that the test of scientific belief is to believe in science even when it disagrees with your core beliefs. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good measurement. You got a better one? Man up; let's hear it.

regards,
Waddie

Your test sounds reasonable, except for the fact that you leave it to yourself to decide what other people's 'core beliefs' are.

I'm a liberal, but I'm not anti-corporate. And, while I drive a Prius because I like the gas mileage, I might prefer to drive a Ferrari or a Porsche.

It's not like I've always really, really wanted to drive a boring car and it's only a belief in global warming that allows me to live out that dream.

And conservatives are not really "anti-nature", despite the fact that many oppose the science of global warming. Most people like nature.

Waddie
06-13-2016, 03:25 PM
...and when one's scientific beliefs DO coincide with their core beliefs, those beliefs are somehow less sincere? THAT is the absurd, stupid, and ridiculous part of the quote.... it's very nearly as stupid as SB's 'virtue signalling' crap.

No one is saying science that does coincide with one's core beliefs is less sincere. It can be sincere but it is not a test. And besides, it's not even under discussion. However, and listen closely; choosing to believe the science even when that science contradicts your core beliefs is a true test. Choosing science over personal belief is a test of character, and of science denial. DeGrasse's point is that liberals are very capable of being science deniers in their own way and on their own issues. This point requires no nuance, nor is it complicated. Nor is it wacky, stupid or silly or whatever else you called it. You're just making yourself look bad now...... :(

regards,
Waddie

Captain Intrepid
06-13-2016, 03:28 PM
...and when one's scientific beliefs DO coincide with their core beliefs, those beliefs are somehow less sincere? THAT is the absurd, stupid, and ridiculous part of the quote.... it's very nearly as stupid as SB's 'virtue signalling' crap.

Not at all. The quote said that you can only claim to be pro-science if you accept scientific evidence that disagrees with your ideology. You expect liberals to accept anthropogenic climate change even if they don't care about science. On the other hand you can use the safety of GMOs as a bellwether in liberals, as the typical ideological position is anti-GMO, while the pro-science position is that GMOs are perfectly safe.

CWSmith
06-13-2016, 03:38 PM
Maher is rather strongly anti-medicine (or anti-medication) as general. His position on vaccines is indefensible.

Waddie
06-13-2016, 03:49 PM
Waddie; Do I think that the test of scientific belief is to believe in science even when it disagrees with your core beliefs. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good measurement. You got a better one? Man up; let's hear it.


ljb5; Your test sounds reasonable, except for the fact thatyou leave it to yourself to decide what other people's 'core beliefs' are.

Huh? WTF? Where did you get that from what I said? I don't decide YOUR core beliefs, YOU decide your core beliefs. Then science comes along and challenges that core belief - you know - the belief you've chosen, not me............. now which way do you swing? Do you reject the science, become a denier, or drop the belief and believe the science? YOUR CHOICE. But it's also a test...... your scores will be posted later.

regards,
Waddie

ljb5
06-13-2016, 04:00 PM
Huh? WTF? Where did you get that from what I said? I don't decide YOUR core beliefs, YOU decide your core beliefs.


... this issue is right in line with their ideology (pro nature, anti corporate).

Again, I am "pro nature" (but who isn't?), but I'm not "anti-corporate."

Boater14
06-13-2016, 04:23 PM
Got no time for Stewart or Maher. On the subject of humor as a weapon against evil? Sure worked against Hitler. I member Popeye slapping down hitler and Tojo. I'll get my history with a liberal spin from Bill moyers...feel like shooting myself afterwards. Didn't know about bill and vaccines. So he's right up there with that eminent scientist Jeannie McCarthy.

BrianY
06-13-2016, 04:39 PM
Waddie - I think the problem with the quote you posted is in the author's use of the word "credit". In using that word he disparages people whose scientific beliefs align with their poiltical beliefs. He makes it out to be some sort of contest in which the most pro-science folks win by getting " credit" (judged and awarded by the author) only for the acceptance of science that conflicts with one's politics. That's a stupid way of looking at it because there is no contest, no rating scale for such things except in the mind of the author. Honestly, who cares what the author - or anyone else - thinks about the purity of someone's leanings toward science? Sure, it's a factor I use in determing certain things about political candidates and posters on this forum (among other circumstances), but I certainly don't need some guy who doesn't know me to rate how much "credit" I or anyone else should get for their support of science. To use a fashionable term in these parts, the author is "virtue signaling" by being presumptuous enough to give or not give "credit" for other people's beliefs and then write about it.

Waddie
06-13-2016, 06:32 PM
Waddie - I think the problem with the quote you posted is in the author's use of the word "credit". In using that word he disparages people whose scientific beliefs align with their poiltical beliefs. He makes it out to be some sort of contest in which the most pro-science folks win by getting " credit" (judged and awarded by the author) only for the acceptance of science that conflicts with one's politics. That's a stupid way of looking at it because there is no contest, no rating scale for such things except in the mind of the author. Honestly, who cares what the author - or anyone else - thinks about the purity of someone's leanings toward science? Sure, it's a factor I use in determing certain things about political candidates and posters on this forum (among other circumstances), but I certainly don't need some guy who doesn't know me to rate how much "credit" I or anyone else should get for their support of science. To use a fashionable term in these parts, the author is "virtue signaling" by being presumptuous enough to give or not give "credit" for other people's beliefs and then write about it.

I think the "credit" he refers to is personal, not public. Only you know your core beliefs, unless you make them public. And only you know if you put science ahead of those beliefs, once again, unless you make it public. So the test is personal and private, unless you decide otherwise. If you do put it all out there, then of course others are free to make judgements; to call you a science denier if they think the moniker fits. Essentially what he is referring to is the Socratic first principle of "know thy self". He was reminding Mahr that liberals (like Mahr) have their share of science deniers; it isn't just a conservative characteristic.

regards,
Waddie

CWSmith
06-13-2016, 06:57 PM
Got no time for Stewart or Maher. On the subject of humor as a weapon against evil? Sure worked against Hitler. I member Popeye slapping down hitler and Tojo. I'll get my history with a liberal spin from Bill moyers...feel like shooting myself afterwards. Didn't know about bill and vaccines. So he's right up there with that eminent scientist Jeannie McCarthy.

You seem to have a lot of anger. Have you ever considered seeing someone about that?