Latest Entertainment News Headlines

Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the science of The Martian in this viral video

08.27.2015

the-martian-banner-matt-damon-jessica-chastain

Ridley Scott's THE MARTIAN will follow astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) as he finds himself stranded on the surface of Mars with only a finite amount of supplies to sustain his own life and signal his crew for rescue. The viral videos shown thus far have given us a behind-the-scenes look at what the Ares crew has had to go through before their trip to the red planet, and now the latest video breaks down the science of the journey. So sit back and let the calming music and the voice of Neil deGrasse Tyson whisk you away into the stars...

While STAR WARS is arguably more fantasy than science-fiction, it looks like THE MARTIAN will be scratching the latter itch in a little over a month's time. The book proved to be a fantastic and satisfying read, and I think it's safe to say that everyone's on-board with this film. NASA and Neil deGrasse Tyson's involvement lends the story some serious authenticity, making it really hard not to get excited about space travel. Let's bring Mark Watney home!

THE MARTIAN opens on October 2, 2015.

the-martian-poster-matt-damon

CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN GALLERY & SEE MORE PICS...

Related Movie Posters

Movie Posters Archive
The Martian 2015 02016 | Movie Posters The Martian 2015 | Movie Posters The Light Between Oceans 2016 | Movie Posters Loving 2016 | Movie Posters The Phenom 2016 | Movie Posters

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

3:19PM on 08/31/2015
Double Post
Double Post
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
1:53PM on 08/31/2015

Yeah....I was going to watch this.....

....then I remembered this is the guy who blew his credibility trying to defend the end of Inception and who takes a stand that if your research doesn't agree with his (or his friends'), you're a "denier."

Welcome to the generation where we've reduced science to the pursuit of celebrity status.
....then I remembered this is the guy who blew his credibility trying to defend the end of Inception and who takes a stand that if your research doesn't agree with his (or his friends'), you're a "denier."

Welcome to the generation where we've reduced science to the pursuit of celebrity status.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:38PM on 08/30/2015
double post
double post
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:38PM on 08/27/2015
Tyson's grasp of science is tenuous at best.

Anyone who embraces the concepts of "science deniers," "scientific consensus," and "settled science," demonstrates scientific illiteracy.
Tyson's grasp of science is tenuous at best.

Anyone who embraces the concepts of "science deniers," "scientific consensus," and "settled science," demonstrates scientific illiteracy.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:47PM on 08/27/2015
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton

Yeah, I guess Newton didn't know what he was talking about either. :/
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton

Yeah, I guess Newton didn't know what he was talking about either. :/
10:38PM on 08/27/2015
Genuine science is never settled. That's one of the things that separates it from religion, which tends to be founded on rigid dogma which is not allowed to be questioned or changed.

Genuine science is never dependent on consensus for its findings. At other points in time, the Flat Earth Theory, the Geocentric and Heliocentric Theories of the universe, the Theory of Concentric Spheres, and even Percival Lowell's Martian Canals, were at one point or another, supported by the scientific
Genuine science is never settled. That's one of the things that separates it from religion, which tends to be founded on rigid dogma which is not allowed to be questioned or changed.

Genuine science is never dependent on consensus for its findings. At other points in time, the Flat Earth Theory, the Geocentric and Heliocentric Theories of the universe, the Theory of Concentric Spheres, and even Percival Lowell's Martian Canals, were at one point or another, supported by the scientific consensus of the day. So consensus literally means nothing.

Genuine science is utterly dependent on skepticism. Only religion has unbelievers, heretics, heathens, infidels, blasphemers ... deniers, who are not allowed to question dogma, and if they do are punished for doing so.

So no, quoting Isaac Newton doesn't place Tyson in the same universe as long as he embraces these religious tenets. Sorry.
11:26AM on 08/28/2015
Um, no, it's a myth that a flat Earth was ever a scientific theory. The Greeks knew the world was round because they saw ships disappear in the distance. They knew they weren't falling off the edge of the Earth so they correctly guessed that the Earth was curved. The Greeks were even able to measure the curvature of the Earth by measuring the angle that the sun made with the ground in Alexander and Syene at the same time of day. Once they had done that it was indeed a settled matter that
Um, no, it's a myth that a flat Earth was ever a scientific theory. The Greeks knew the world was round because they saw ships disappear in the distance. They knew they weren't falling off the edge of the Earth so they correctly guessed that the Earth was curved. The Greeks were even able to measure the curvature of the Earth by measuring the angle that the sun made with the ground in Alexander and Syene at the same time of day. Once they had done that it was indeed a settled matter that the Earth was round, even though there would have been scientifically ignorant people who would have denied this fact.

How about instead of trying to imply Tyson doesn't know what he is talking about you actually tell us where you think he is wrong. That should be interesting. :)
12:34PM on 08/28/2015
Well that's certainly what the Collective teaches today about the Flat Earth Theory, but it's incorrect even though you've prefaced your snark by typing out the word "um" like an exasperated teenager.

Remember, WikiPedia is not your friend.

The Collective wants to convince people that consensus means something in science, so they have to revise history. In order to do that, they manufacture nuance between pre and post Renaissance science, while ignoring the reality that science and faith
Well that's certainly what the Collective teaches today about the Flat Earth Theory, but it's incorrect even though you've prefaced your snark by typing out the word "um" like an exasperated teenager.

Remember, WikiPedia is not your friend.

The Collective wants to convince people that consensus means something in science, so they have to revise history. In order to do that, they manufacture nuance between pre and post Renaissance science, while ignoring the reality that science and faith were previously interwoven for centuries. [link] Furthermore, the fact that ancient Greeks understood a spherical Earth doesn't negate other cultures who didn't, unless you're euro-centric. In fact, Flat Earth theorists survive to this very day. [link][link] Regardless, that doesn't address the other items in my list.

I just did tell you where I think Tyson is wrong in my previous comment. What didn't you understand?


5:19AM on 08/29/2015
I see, so you believe the Earth is flat, that the sun literally rises in the East from the edge of the world and that there is life on Mars? These were all things you talked about in your previous comment. Because if you think the world is round, that the Earth goes around the sun and that Mars is barren and lifeless then I guess that makes you one of those sheeples listening to what the collective have to say. Because the fact that the world is round, that the Earth goes around the sun and
I see, so you believe the Earth is flat, that the sun literally rises in the East from the edge of the world and that there is life on Mars? These were all things you talked about in your previous comment. Because if you think the world is round, that the Earth goes around the sun and that Mars is barren and lifeless then I guess that makes you one of those sheeples listening to what the collective have to say. Because the fact that the world is round, that the Earth goes around the sun and that Mars is barren and lifeless is all part of the scientific consensus. Indeed, that the Earth is flat, that the sun literally rises in the East from the edge of the world or that there is life on Mars were never scientific theories. (For example, the Italian word "canalis" meaning "channels" was mistranslated by American newspapers to mean "canals".) These were all things that ordinary people believed and, yes, they are all things that scientifically ignorant people might believe to this day. Just because people believe things that do not agree with the consensus of the scientific community does not somehow make them more enlightened. And, yes, there is such a thing as consensus in the scientific community and, no, it does not mean that science has become like religion because if you were to provide actual evidence to support an opposing view then the consensus of the scientific community would change.

So, again, perhaps you would like to be more specific and explain where you think Tyson has gone wrong?

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
— Isaac Asimov
12:28PM on 08/29/2015
Either you're completely missing the point, or you're stupidly trying to ascribe words and concepts to me that I never wrote.

I never once wrote or even insinuated that I believe any of those things. Rather, that assertion is a complete manufactured phantom of your own making. So I can't be even be certain who it is that you're even talking to here.

The primary point here, is that scientific consensus itself is utterly meaningless. I'm not talking about ordinary people believing
Either you're completely missing the point, or you're stupidly trying to ascribe words and concepts to me that I never wrote.

I never once wrote or even insinuated that I believe any of those things. Rather, that assertion is a complete manufactured phantom of your own making. So I can't be even be certain who it is that you're even talking to here.

The primary point here, is that scientific consensus itself is utterly meaningless. I'm not talking about ordinary people believing these things, but rather, I am very specifically talking about the scientific consensus of the day supporting each of these things at one time or another. Each of those things was supported by consensus at any given point in time, and each of those things have been subsequently discredited. The only thing that consensus is evidence of, is the existence of consensus, and absolutely nothing else. Consensus plays no part whatsoever in the Scientific Method, and shouldn't. So those citing consensus as scientific evidence of anything, demonstrate their own scientific illiteracy. So I do understand that there is in fact such a thing as scientific consensus. But what you and Tyson apparently don't understand, is that scientific consensus is in fact meaningless.

Quoting Isaac Asimov won't change this, nor will it change the reality that those working in modern day academia are in fact the real anti-intellectuals, and the more deeply ignorant segment of society, as is evidenced by the worthless plagiarized Soviet propaganda they try to pass off as educational material.

Incidentally, America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Look at the recent turn-abouts the FDA has had to make over salt and cholesterol, or the recent revision over drinking 8 glasses of water a day, because the science is now thought to have been wrong. But that's the thing about genuine science; it is in a state of constant flux. The moment you start stigmatizing and punishing skeptics for going against consensus and questioning rigid dogma, is the very same moment that it proves itself to be religion rather than genuine science. It's just the way it is.

Again, I explained exactly where Tyson is wrong in the post that I previously indicated. Again, what part of it didn't you understand? How many times are you going to need to be told this exactly?

I suppose I could copy and paste the text from the post that I'm referring to into a new post if that would help you.
11:48PM on 08/29/2015
"The primary point here, is that scientific consensus itself is utterly meaningless."

No, it isn't. Do you agree that the world is round? Do you agree that the Earth goes around the sun? Do you agree that the stars are distant suns? Do you agree that rain is the result of water vapor condensing in clouds? If so, then you agree with the scientific consensus on these issues. If not then you need to provide evidence why you think these things are wrong. It is that simple.

"I am very
"The primary point here, is that scientific consensus itself is utterly meaningless."

No, it isn't. Do you agree that the world is round? Do you agree that the Earth goes around the sun? Do you agree that the stars are distant suns? Do you agree that rain is the result of water vapor condensing in clouds? If so, then you agree with the scientific consensus on these issues. If not then you need to provide evidence why you think these things are wrong. It is that simple.

"I am very specifically talking about the scientific consensus of the day supporting each of these things at one time or another"

Scientists never said the Earth was flat: ordinary people did. Scientists never said that there was life on Mars: ordinary people did. Ordinary people are a lot more confident about what they believe than scientists who are generally very sceptical about ideas until they are provided with evidence supporting them. Stop trying to rewrite history.

"I explained exactly where Tyson is wrong"

On the contrary, all you have done is prove yourself to be an idiot. You think all university professors are communists pushing a socialist agenda. I suspect you have spent very little time inside an actual classroom or reading an actual book.
2:39PM on 08/30/2015
It never ceases to amuse me, how professor's delusions of omniscience always gets them into intellectual trouble. Unfortunately for you however, there are no speech codes or trigger warnings to prevent critical thought and protect your delusion here.

Yes, scientific consensus is in fact meaningless, and will always continue to be, despite your uneducated opinion that it has meaning of some kind.

Now, what you're failing to understand in your euro-centric stupor, is that the scientists of
It never ceases to amuse me, how professor's delusions of omniscience always gets them into intellectual trouble. Unfortunately for you however, there are no speech codes or trigger warnings to prevent critical thought and protect your delusion here.

Yes, scientific consensus is in fact meaningless, and will always continue to be, despite your uneducated opinion that it has meaning of some kind.

Now, what you're failing to understand in your euro-centric stupor, is that the scientists of the day had in fact recognized the Flat Earth Theory. Remember, priests were the scientists of their day, as science and religion were intertwined before the Age of Enlightenment. I've even provided links (citations) that lead to the information which demonstrates that Europe did not contain the world's only thinkers in ancient times. But I can only lead a horse to water, so let's put aside the Flat Earth Theory (pay particular note to the word "theory" in the phrase Flat Earth Theory) for the moment, since it seems to be a sticking point for you.

Do you agree that the Earth is the center of the universe? Do you agree that the the Sun is the center of the Universe? Do you agree that the Earth consists of concentric spheres? Do you agree that Martians built canals on Mars? Maybe not today. But these things were all supported by the scientific consensus of the day and subsequently discredited, therefore clearly demonstrating the utter meaninglessness of scientific consensus. So much so, that not once but twice Congress commissioned an expedition to search for an entrance to the Hollow Earth in the name of science. The Symmes Expedition in 1828 and the Wilkes Expedition in 1836. The only folks who can't see the truth of this are those who emotionally want scientific consensus to mean something. Scientific consensus has no place in the Scientific Method, and insisting that it does and has meaning merely demonstrates your own scientific illiteracy.

But let's look at something else. Eugenics. Also a scientific theory upheld by the scientific consensus of the day. Do you agree with the theory of eugenics?

How about phrenology? A branch of psychology in the 19th Century, which psychologists referred to as "the only true science of mind." [link] What do the bumps on your head say about you?

One of the problems you're having in your argument is that you're confusing existence with meaning. Does scientific consensus exist? Yes, of course it does. But I'm not arguing that it doesn't. Rather, what I am arguing instead, is that scientific consensus which does exist simply has no meaning as applied to genuine science. Many things exist but have no meaning. Take hearsay for example.

Genuine dispassionate science is solely about evidence gained from repeatable observations and experiments, it's not at all about fashion trends in political correctness or emotionally charged activism.

Incidentally, Percival Lowell was a mathematician and an astronomer, so I'm not sure what issue of Mad Magazine or page from WikiPedia that you're getting your history from.

This conversation isn't going the way you had initially predicted it would, is it there Chuck?

Your suspicions would be incorrect. I returned to college late in life, erroneously thinking it would be of value. I earned two degrees and certificates in two minors. It is precisely because of my first hand experience with "higher" education as an older adult, that I know that modern day college professors are in fact communists pushing a socialist agenda. Not a single textbook or any assigned reading can be had that doesn't tout the mad scribbling of Karl Marx in some fashion. Unfortunately, the young, naive, and highly impressionable 18-22 year old crowd that modern academia preys upon, doesn't realize that tall tales of Che Guevara, exercises in social justice fantasy making, and fascism masquerading as activism, do not constitute a genuine education until well after graduation, when they find that no one is hiring anyone who learned the worthless Marxist gobbledygook that they had to write 10 page response papers to. Don't take my word for it. Just read the common reports on the lunatics that run academia today, and their preposterous salaries. [link] It's unclear as to whether or not these professors are even aware that the 1960s ended nearly half a century ago.

Forgive me Martin, but it just doesn't seem like you have any idea what you're talking about here.

But let's try this again anyway because not everyone learns at the same pace.

The question you're asking me is, where do I think that Tyson is wrong.

The answer to that question, is that I think Tyson is wrong in his embrace of the concepts "science deniers," "scientific consensus," and "settled science," none of which have ever or will ever be a part of genuine science, but rather are hallmark signs of religious faith. For why I think that, here's my post from above copied and pasted for your convenience:

Genuine science is never settled. That's one of the things that separates it from religion, which tends to be founded on rigid dogma which is not allowed to be questioned or changed.

Genuine science is never dependent on consensus for its findings. At other points in time, the Flat Earth Theory, the Geocentric and Heliocentric Theories of the universe, the Theory of Concentric Spheres, and even Percival Lowell's Martian Canals, were at one point or another, supported by the scientific consensus of the day. So consensus literally means nothing.

Genuine science is utterly dependent on skepticism. Only religion has unbelievers, heretics, heathens, infidels, blasphemers ... deniers, who are not allowed to question dogma, and if they do are punished for doing so.

I hope that helps. It'll be an interesting experiment to see if you're able to process the information this time around, drone.
9:20PM on 08/30/2015
"Now, what you're failing to understand in your euro-centric stupor, is that the scientists of the day had in fact recognized the Flat Earth Theory. Remember, priests were the scientists of their day"

Nope, sorry, but you don't get to conflate religions and science. Science begins with the asking of questions whereas religion ends with the asking of questions.

"Do you agree that the Earth is the center of the universe? Do you agree that the the Sun is the center of the
"Now, what you're failing to understand in your euro-centric stupor, is that the scientists of the day had in fact recognized the Flat Earth Theory. Remember, priests were the scientists of their day"

Nope, sorry, but you don't get to conflate religions and science. Science begins with the asking of questions whereas religion ends with the asking of questions.

"Do you agree that the Earth is the center of the universe? Do you agree that the the Sun is the center of the Universe?"

Again, no. It was the Catholic church who stated that the Earth was the center of the universe even going for far as to imprison Galileo for supporting the Copernican theory of a sun-centered universe. It turns out that the sun is indeed at the center of the solar system. This is the utility of scientific theories: they are correct in so far as they can be used to make accurate predictions but that does not mean that new emerge will not emerge that will make it necessary to refine the theory. An example of this is Einstein's theory of relativity which essentially replaced Galileo's kinematics and Newton's dynamics. Einstein's theory of relativity did not make Galileo and Newton wrong, however, as their equations are still are still used in everyday calculations.

"Do you agree that the Earth consists of concentric spheres?"

The Earth does consist of concentric spheres: the center of the Earth consists of an iron-nickel spherical core and the outer crust is also a sphere.

"Do you agree that Martians built canals on Mars? Maybe not today. But these things were all supported by the scientific consensus of the day"

No, they weren't. Stop making things up. The word "canali" meaning "channels" was mistranslated from Italian to mean "canals". There are channels are Mars and this would seem to suggest that Mars used to have running water.

"But let's look at something else. Eugenics. Also a scientific theory upheld by the scientific consensus of the day. Do you agree with the theory of eugenics?"

Eugenics is not a theory but a philosophy: it is the idea that people with "better genes" should be encouraged to reproduce in order to improve the human race. It is not a scientific theory because there is no objective way to determine which genes are "better".

"How about phrenology? A branch of psychology"

Nonsense, phrenology wasn't science: it was pseudoscience. It falls under the same category as homeopathy or acupuncture. There will always be charlatans who will claim that their practices are scientific when they are essentially mystical in nature.

"Does scientific consensus exist? Yes, of course it does. But I'm not arguing that it doesn't."

Actually, you have said several times that it doesn't: "Genuine science is never dependent on consensus", "The Collective wants to convince people that consensus means something in science, so they have to revise history", "scientific consensus itself is utterly meaningless", "Consensus plays no part whatsoever in the Scientific Method" and "scientific consensus is in fact meaningless". You are just backtracking. Of course scientific consensus exists: it exists because we can't expect every school child to start from the beginning and make all the discoveries by his or herself: we have to rely on the textbooks to tell us what the scientific consensus is. That doesn't mean everything in the textbooks is true and, indeed, this is why we teach young students to do experiments so they can see for themselves that the results of the experiments agree with the consensus described in the textbook. If one day somebody can design an experiment whose results consistently disagree with the scientific consensus described in the textbooks then the scientific consensus will change and the textbooks will be updated.

"Incidentally, Percival Lowell was a mathematician and an astronomer, so I'm not sure what issue of Mad Magazine or page from WikiPedia that you're getting your history from."

I never said he wasn't: I said that Giovanni Schiaparelli's claim that there were "canalis" on Mars was mistranslated by the American media. [link] "They were first described by the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli during the opposition of 1877, and confirmed by later observers. Schiaparelli called these canali, which was translated into English as "canals"."

"The question you're asking me is, where do I think that Tyson is wrong."

Yes and you still haven't answered this one simple question.
10:03PM on 08/30/2015
[link]

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

"Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists,
[link]

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

"Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]"
1:47PM on 08/31/2015
Martin, you probably shouldn't argue with people smarter than you. It doesn't help your case.
Martin, you probably shouldn't argue with people smarter than you. It doesn't help your case.
2:59PM on 08/31/2015
If you're going to proclaim that I cannot conflate science and religion, then you need to go on to explain why. When the Vatican observatory is making scientific discoveries in the modern era, and NASA has recently been tasked with making Muslims feel good about their historic contributions to science, then I get to conflate religion with science all I like. The fact is, many scientific discoveries have come to us directly from religion, particularly before the Age of Enlightenment. Pascal
If you're going to proclaim that I cannot conflate science and religion, then you need to go on to explain why. When the Vatican observatory is making scientific discoveries in the modern era, and NASA has recently been tasked with making Muslims feel good about their historic contributions to science, then I get to conflate religion with science all I like. The fact is, many scientific discoveries have come to us directly from religion, particularly before the Age of Enlightenment. Pascal was a scientist and theologian. Mendel was a monk. Grimaldi and Terzi were Jesuits. Lemaitre, Boscovich, Steno, Copernicus, Hauy, Gassendi, and Picard were priests. The list goes on but there's an outside chance that you might get the point.

I also think it's interesting that you attempt to separate scientists from "ordinary people" which essentially ignores the reality that a great deal of scientific discoveries and contributions are routinely made by amateur scientists. It's almost as though you seek to elevate scientists to some kind of untouchable preisthood. But remember, peer reviewed publications are not gospel, and aren't meant to be.

I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're trying to make up about the "asking of questions," but maybe you're unwittingly referring to the Inductive Method vs. the Deductive Method perhaps?

Some of your WikiPedia based answers to my questions help to highlight your blatant scientific illiteracy.

In regards to your lecture in response to the heliocentric and geocentric models of the universe, it misses the primary point. Of course you don't agree with them, since the scientific consensus that once upheld their validity has since been discredited. It's not about theories being right or wrong, but rather how the scientific consensus that once supported them was ultimately proven to have no meaning. So there was really no need to go off on an irrelevant tangent about the Theory of Relativity, which awaits a concrete Unified Field Theory anyway.

The Theory of Concentric Spheres does not refer to the layers of the Earth's crust and mantle, but rather to a discredited Theory that states that the Earth is hollow with several concentric spheres in side of it, each containing their own biosphere, and a miniature Sun in the center. Cuteness doesn't win debates.

The canal/canali mistranslation that you're referring to, is what inspired Lowell to examine Mars at his observatory. Canals that Lowell mapped out and wrote books about. But the crucial part that you're missing here, is that Lowell was a mathematician and astronomer; he was in fact science.

Eugenics is not a philosophy, although the Nazi brand of it was strangely mixed with Madame Blavatsky's bizarre occult ramblings, so it's understandable where someone would make that mistake. Rather eugenics is the science of improving human stock through selective breeding programs and the sterilization and euthanasia of "undesirables." The "better" genes are whatever the political party in power arbitrarily says they are. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger can explain it better than I can. [link]

Of course phrenology is pseudoscience, but again you're missing the point. In its time it was considered hard science by the scientific consensus of the day, which has since been discredited.

It's almost as though you could benefit from a remedial vocabulary class.

Let's examine the comments of mine that you've pointed out: "Genuine science is never dependent on consensus," "The Collective wants to convince people that consensus means something in science, so they have to revise history", "scientific consensus itself is utterly meaningless", "Consensus plays no part whatsoever in the Scientific Method" and "scientific consensus is in fact meaningless".

Not one of these statements contends that scientific consensus doesn't exist, only that scientific consensus (which does exist) is meaningless, and that genuine science is never dependent on it. That's not backtracking. Rather that's the basic meaning contained in the words that I actually wrote. Now, I have no doubt that you wish I had asserted that scientific consensus doesn't exist, so that you could type out the well-rehearsed counterpoint that the Collective has pre-programmed you with, but your feelings don't change reality. Pay particular note how the phrase, "scientific consensus is meaningless" contains different words than the phrase, "scientific consensus does not exist." Do you see the difference? How is it possible for a college professor to respond to words that were never written?

I just did answer that one simple question. In the interest of clear communication with those who are special, I even prefaced my answer with the blunt phrase, "The answer to that question, is that I think Tyson is wrong in..." But this apparently isn't the answer you're fishing for, as it would appear that you perhaps would like me to write something else for which you have a pre-programmed response for. Could I ask what that might be?

Ahh, yes. I knew it was only a matter of time before you cited the teenage essayists of WikiPedia, an entirely worthless resource. Why is it worthless? Well, it's interesting that you should use it to define consensus at this point. It's worthless because it's a consensus encyclopedia. Consensus is meaningless. Now, I know that adolescent progressive pea-brains are highly concerned with what the "cool kids" are doing and thinking at any given moment, so consensus means very much to them. But the reality is that consensus means nothing, because consensus is far too often incorrect as history repeatedly teaches us. WikiPedia, is essentially the digital equivalent of bathroom stall graffiti, upon which anyone can write and edit. You may not like that, but that's the way it is anyway. Honestly, how can you be a college professor and not know this very basic stuff?

Now, was there anything else you'd like to say to embarrass yourself more fully today? I'm finding this immensely entertaining!
3:20PM on 08/31/2015
@ Des1

Professors never learn.
@ Des1

Professors never learn.
4:17PM on 09/01/2015
Bueller?
Bueller?
6:36AM on 09/02/2015
Des1, when I encounter somebody smarter than me, I'll let you know.

Moat Man, you still haven't answered my simple question: what has Tyson said that has been proven incorrect and what evidence do you have to support that he is incorrect? I have read all your ramblings and you have not once answered that simple question. All you are is an anti-intellectual who is not and never was interested in getting an education. You are only interested in dismissing everything that has been discovered
Des1, when I encounter somebody smarter than me, I'll let you know.

Moat Man, you still haven't answered my simple question: what has Tyson said that has been proven incorrect and what evidence do you have to support that he is incorrect? I have read all your ramblings and you have not once answered that simple question. All you are is an anti-intellectual who is not and never was interested in getting an education. You are only interested in dismissing everything that has been discovered in the past under the assumption that it is all wrong anyway. The fact is that textbooks are full of scientific facts that have been unaltered for centuries. You might want to actually crack one open one day.

7:11PM on 09/03/2015
Martin, a tapeworm is smarter than you.

Here is your simple question: "what has Tyson said that has been proven incorrect and what evidence do you have to support that he is incorrect?"

Here is the answer to your simple question:

Tyson has publicly supported (through speaking and writing) concepts of scientific consensus having meaning, science deniers, and settled science, all of which are entirely incorrect, as such concepts are hallmark signs of religious faith rather than
Martin, a tapeworm is smarter than you.

Here is your simple question: "what has Tyson said that has been proven incorrect and what evidence do you have to support that he is incorrect?"

Here is the answer to your simple question:

Tyson has publicly supported (through speaking and writing) concepts of scientific consensus having meaning, science deniers, and settled science, all of which are entirely incorrect, as such concepts are hallmark signs of religious faith rather than scientific thought.

That is the answer to your simple question.

It might be easier for you to simply tell me how many times you'll need to read this information before your progressive pea-brain will be capable of processing it, and then I'll be happy to accommodate you by copying and pasting it that many times into a post below. How does that sound?

Or maybe, you don't want to accept my answer because you've got a pre-programmed response that you're dying to type out in the absence of an answer. So perhaps you should just tell me the deeply stupid answer that we both know you're obviously fishing for. That would work too.

Yes, yes. I'm an anti-intellectual and I hate education, blah, blah, blah. Hilarious! How original! If I had a nickel for every time a drone from the Collective unthinkingly parroted that ad hominem, I'd be richer than a college professor making six figures. Bold words from someone who's been demonstrated to have no idea what he's talking about., to the point that he quite clearly doesn't understand the definitions of the words he's typing out. What you're really taking offense at here, is that the collegiate indoctrination I was subjected to didn't take hold of me and turn me into some body snatcher simulacrum as it easily does the 18-22 year old crowd that you people prey upon. Heh, as though today's college experience offers genuine education anyway. How can you idiots still operate under this ridiculous pretense when you've all been fully exposed for years already? I guess the kids still believe you, but still.

And what psychic powers are you now claiming to have, to know what I was or was not interested in? How unscientific is that?

"The fact is that textbooks are full of scientific facts that have been unaltered for centuries."

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Does the fact that some scientific facts have remained unchanged for centuries guarantee their unchanging nature for centuries to come? Only if it's considered rigid religious dogma, because that's what dogma is.

I've cracked open many genuine textbooks, and then I've also cracked open post-1960s era textbooks. The bulk of the best ones are the ones that are published before the flatulent 1960s, before adolescent hippies developed modern progressive "thought" through the haze of LSD and other mind altering substances, shortly after they stumbled out of the p!ss holes of Woodstock, and then wormed their way into academia where their lazy socialist lifestyles could be facilitated with profuse vacationing. You definitely want to avoid anything written by those very special folks.

The only thing you've done here is allow me to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt - once again - that modern day college professors are in fact some of the most uneducated and clueless people walking the face of this planet. A simple feat when their idiocy isn't protected with moronic speech codes and the politically correct fascists in administration. Speech codes and trigger warnings preclude any possibility of genuine education occurring on today's college campuses. The fact is that modern day professors routinely confuse their lessons in communist indoctrination with genuine education.

Genuine education is gained through reading good books and gaining real world experiences. Not through perusing Facebook during some idiot professor's poorly spelled Power Point presentation about genuinely anti-intellectual "culture jamming" or "sound imperialism" nonsense, or through marching and chanting with pre-printed protest signs over the latest fad in outrage in order to avoid having to sit in a smelly classroom, or listening to some idiot grievance-monger behind a podium trying to make themselves feel important by going on and on about "other" this, and "other" that, because he thinks that Marxist gobbledygook fills the void of his utterly empty and meaningless life.

Plato knew this. Why don't you, professor?

The reality here is that you're a complete idiot, and that's something that both you and I are now fully aware of. In fact, your idiocy has even been officially certified by the state, the certificate of which now hangs on your wall. Congratulations. But hey, even though you're an idiot, at least you're useful to someone, right?

Now, could you describe for us in detail how all of this makes you feel?



10:50PM on 09/03/2015
Look, you fucking moron, get this through your dense skull: I have asked you time and time again to tell me what Tyson has said that was wrong and to provide evidence that he was wrong and YOU HAVE PATENTLY REFUSED TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO ANSWER THIS SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION. Any person with two functioning brain cells to rub together is going to conclude that you are just an idiotic fool who has no idea what he is talking about!

You think that everything in the textbooks is wrong?
Look, you fucking moron, get this through your dense skull: I have asked you time and time again to tell me what Tyson has said that was wrong and to provide evidence that he was wrong and YOU HAVE PATENTLY REFUSED TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO ANSWER THIS SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION. Any person with two functioning brain cells to rub together is going to conclude that you are just an idiotic fool who has no idea what he is talking about!

You think that everything in the textbooks is wrong? PROVE IT! You think that university professors don't know what they are talking about? PROVE IT! Don't talk to me about Nazis or quack doctors or mathematicians who thought Martians were building canals. None of this has anything to do with the simple question of what you think Tyson said that was wrong. Last I checked it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson in this video and NOT Percival Lowell!

You think that all of science is wrong and yet you are typing into a computer and sending data over the internet with the full confidence that you are oh so much smarter than the people who actually have the slightest clue what they are talking about! You are the dumbest stupidiest piece of shit I have ever encountered on the internet and that is saying a lot! The only "collective" we have to worry about are uneducated boneheads like you that unfortunately regardless of your obvious mental deficiencies are still allowed to vote!
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting

Movie Hottie Of The Week

More