Neil Tyson On The Politics Of Science Denial

Science 2.0 ^ | 9/1/2014 | Hank Campbell

[JimSEA]

Spend any time in American science media and you may find some of them are pretty far out of the political mainstream; so far out, they may not even be friends with anyone who has not always voted the same way as them.

So it's unsurprising that much of science media once perpetuated the claim that 'science votes Democrat.' Humans are fallible and confirmation bias is sneaky. As was apocryphally attributed to New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael after the 1972 Presidential election and a Richard M. Nixon landslide victory, "I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him." (1)

[ShadowAce]

So you’re in favor of science by consensus?

The problem, though, is that evolution is not science--which is why they can claim "consensus."

It is not reproducible
It is not falsifiable.

[tacticalogic]

So you’re in favor of science by consensus?

Also is the science really only settled with a majority?

Or is there a certain higher percentage you’d prefer?

I'm in favor of considering unintended consequences. Have you done that?

[JimSEA]

If a fraud is detected, good science will correct it (ie. Piltdown Man). Why would have to respond to something written 150+ years ago. It’s a bs tactic used in in debates and is meaningless now. He didn’t find a crocoduck and no one ever will.

[JimSEA]

Let me get this straight, you are in favor of using the Bible as the standard for “proving” scientific fraud? You’re going to need larger prisons or a new standard for capital punishment for more “crimes”? I’ve worked in the mining industry for some 40 years and lived in mining towns from birth until about 20 years ago when I moved to a mixed industrial community. In all that time I’ve never met even one geologist, mining engineer or metallurgist who doubted deep time as evidenced in the ore bodies where they worked. I further never met one who expressed doubt about evolution. I guess we would all be in serious trouble in your utopia.

[tacticalogic]

It is not reproducible

It is not falsifiable.

How do you know it's not?

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "Here’s a website that sums up the fraud of evoltionists to date - quite well done imho esp. for a Wordpress article.
Evolution Frauds, according to Evolution is not Science website "

I counted nine alleged "frauds".
Of those nine, the four are ancient history, scientific mistakes corrected by science itself, just as it should be.

The other five represent serious "frauds" only in the sense that this particular report on them is major fraudulent, from the minor details to what it implies.
For one example, it suggests something "fraudulent" in the science on Neanderthals, because one scientist was alleged to have fudged some of his age-dates.

But the science on evolution of pre-humans does not depend on one scientist or one fossil.
In fact, there are hundreds of pre-human & early human sites, yielding bones or fossils representing thousands of individuals in dozens of species or sub-species living over the past seven million years.

Here is a partial listing of some of those.

And here, yet again, is a display of those allegedly non-existent "transitional forms".

[BrandtMichaels]

Twisting my words again - I don’t think utopia is possible in this world nor would I dare to presume using the Bible solely for detecting scientific fraud.

But if something directly contradicts the Bible then I, for one, will heavily scrutinize the topic and related research. And it should never be for the government to fund and choose winners and losers for anything so highly controverted.

Also due to consensus thinking, anyone who doubted the evolution narrative would be highly unlikely to remain in any geologic discipline while openly voicing their concerns. They’d either keep it to themselves or find another line of work. Or speak up and wait for their peers to have them removed from the job.

[BrandtMichaels]

Well here my mileage has varied significantly from yours.

“In fact, there are hundreds of pre-human & early human sites, yielding bones or fossils representing thousands of individuals in dozens of species or sub-species living over the past seven million years.”

Sorry, but you’ll need to prove this statement as it contradicts everything I’ve read and researched for same.

In fact, the number of sites and artifacts found with ancient human remains is quite small.

[BroJoeK]

ShadowAce: "The problem, though, is that evolution is not science--which is why they can claim 'consensus.' "

By every conceivable definition, evolution theory -- along with other elements of what are sometimes called "historical sciences" -- are parts of science-in-general.

Efforts by anti-scientists such as BrandtMichaels and now ShadowAce to have evolution declared "non-science" and their own religious beliefs to be a "part of science" went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that: no, evolution is science, and religion is not.

And speaking of "settled science", that is settled law!

[ShadowAce]

You have no idea what my "religious beliefs" are, thus you have no idea what it is am actually saying.

Quit trying to mind read.

[JimSEA]

Without the concepts of deep time and evolution, geology doesn’t work. You couldn’t find oil, mineral deposits, diamonds except by chance. You further wouldn’t be able to mine the deposit in the most efficient manner.

[BrandtMichaels]

Using the opinion of the latter-day US Supreme Court does not bolster your opinion - rather it detracts from anything even remotely defensible. Are these the same folks who approved of Obamacare?

[BrandtMichaels]

How would anyone know? They currently only follow this one twisted paradigm and no other.

Evolution “allows for convergent evolution (statistically impossible), stagnant evolution (you mean to tell me that for 500 million years there could be no improvement to the horseshoe crab?), punctuated evolution (everything stays the same for a real long time and then evolution kicks into high gear and it all happens so fast there’s no record of it having happened at all), neutral evolution (the blueprints for marvelously useful structures get created in unexpressed DNA by random shuffling, until one day voila, the gene is turned on and the structure appears fully formed). In evolution anything goes and contradictions live in happy harmony with one another. This is science? It’s not even a sound religion.
- Laszlo Bencze”

[BrandtMichaels]

So your arguments are so weak that you must resort to every liberal tactic in their handbook?

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "Sorry, but you’ll need to prove this statement as it contradicts everything I’ve read and researched for same.
In fact, the number of sites and artifacts found with ancient human remains is quite small."

1. This previous link shows over 150 of the best known pre-modern human sites.

2. This site tells us that the number of pre-human individuals uncovered is over 6,000!

3. This site shows the number of pre-human species and sub-species uncovered so far is over two dozen coming from past seven million years!

Please let me know if any of those links don't work.

[BroJoeK]

ShadowAce: "You have no idea what my "religious beliefs" are, thus you have no idea what it is am actually saying.
Quit trying to mind read."

I know exactly what you've posted on this thread -- you defended BrandtMichaels and squabbled semantics with tacticalogic.
You stated specifically that "evolution is not science", and that is the precise remark my comments address.

Are you telling us now that you disassociate yourself from BrandtMichael's religious beliefs, but still classify evolution theory as "not science"?

[ShadowAce]

Yes, I do know what I posted--which means I also know you do not know what I believe.

I did discuss semantics and grammar--neither of which indicates my beliefs.

I have no idea what BrandtMichaels' beliefs are, so I cannot dissociate nor associate myself from/with them.

[BrandtMichaels]

You’re provided links claim pre-humans - that was not my request - fail.

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "Using the opinion of the latter-day US Supreme Court does not bolster your opinion - rather it detracts from anything even remotely defensible."

My point is: you and ShadowAce have here asserted your authority to declare so-called "historical sciences" as "not science".
You have also asserted that your creationist beliefs are somehow a part of science.

Such claims have been reviewed and declared illegitimate by the US Supreme and other courts.
So you are not only arguing against me, you argue against the law of the land, applied to public schools.

Of course, you may claim the Supreme Court is wrong here, as in other cases, but I'm telling you they're not wrong in this case, BECAUSE in every sense you can think of, there is a serious difference between what we call "natural science" and traditional ideas about religion, including God's actions in creating the Universe.

So, you don't want to yoke your religion and science together -- they will not "play well together", especially in our increasingly "multi-cultural" polity.
Much better to keep them separate, and teach God's miracles of creation in church or other classes devoted to such matters.

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "You’re provided links claim pre-humans - that was not my request - fail."

No, pal, YOU fail, because presented with facts, all you can think to do is bob, weave and quibble over words.
You asked for "ancient human remains" and the sites I linked gave both "ancient human" and "pre-human" remains from the past seven million years -- hundreds of sites, thousands of individuals, dozens of species or sub-species.

Scientists have their own ways to classify separate "species", "sub-species" or "breeds", and they do not really specify exactly where "pre-human" ends and "fully modern human" begins, so you can make your own distinctions.
For example, do you consider Neanderthals as homo sapiens, or some separate species?

In my opinion "fully modern human" begins with Adam, with farming and the first cities, but that's my religious opinion, not a biological differentiation.