If you have some time to kill, an interesting discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RExQFZzHXQ
I made some critical comments about Tyson -- I've found some of his talks to be too rambling and disorganized, he's made what I thought were some wishy-washy comments about religion. But that's because I have high standards if you're going to be considered (by yourself or others) a leading popularizer of science. I thought he was good here.
-
In total there are 16 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 16 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 813 on Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:52 pm
Dawkins and Tyson video
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
What does it mean to "popularize science"?Dexter wrote:If you have some time to kill, an interesting discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RExQFZzHXQ
I made some critical comments about Tyson -- I've found some of his talks to be too rambling and disorganized, he's made what I thought were some wishy-washy comments about religion. But that's because I have high standards if you're going to be considered (by yourself or others) a leading popularizer of science. I thought he was good here.
You mean, like, in a effort to raise consciousness and give meaning to life?
Would you like to do away with religion completely? What is your definition of religion? Let's see if you're even able to define it first.
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
I mean what an ordinary person would mean, not your strawman about giving meaning to life. Telling people about science, and how it helps explain the world.ant wrote: What does it mean to "popularize science"?
You mean, like, in a effort to raise consciousness and give meaning to life?
I'm not interested in debating definitions of religion. I would like to do away with false beliefs, especially those with potential to do harm and make people's lives worse (see religious oppression around the world). Can those false beliefs also provide comfort and happiness to people? Sure. As does belief in Santa Claus. If those beliefs are not harming others, then by all means, keep believing. But I still think people should try to educate others about what is known about the world, and what claims have zero evidence.Would you like to do away with religion completely? What is your definition of religion? Let's see if you're even able to define it first.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
Oh I get it. You're interested in doing away with theories of an intellegent designer because its unscientific to think such thoughts without evidence, but it's not unscientific to consider the possibility of a Megaverse because the evidence is in the bank for that one regardless of our inability to apply our powers of observation.
Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!
Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
I think the strawman atheists love to beat up "religion attempts to explain natural phenomena" is dull and empty.
Also, it's convenient of atheists to generalize without shame that religion is synonymous with magic.
That is an ignorant attempt at a constructive discussion.
Also, it's convenient of atheists to generalize without shame that religion is synonymous with magic.
That is an ignorant attempt at a constructive discussion.
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
ant wrote:Oh I get it. You're interested in doing away with theories of an intellegent designer because its unscientific to think such thoughts without evidence, but it's not unscientific to consider the possibility of a Megaverse because the evidence is in the bank for that one regardless of our inability to apply our powers of observation.
Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!
I bolded the strawman arguments for you. Nice try.ant wrote:I think the strawman atheists love to beat up "religion attempts to explain natural phenomena" is dull and empty.
Also, it's convenient of atheists to generalize without shame that religion is synonymous with magic.
That is an ignorant attempt at a constructive discussion.
But yes, religion makes claims with no evidence. Unlike science, there is no corrective process.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
Yes! Everything is corrected by science!
Why is Newton's universal law of gravitation true?
How did conciousness rise from evolutionary processes?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What banged during the the big bang?
It doesn't matter! Because in another universe everything true here is false over there!
Conciousness succeeded here but not over there!
There is no purpose or reason! The evidence will be in! You wait and see. Us scientists will be proven right!
Why is Newton's universal law of gravitation true?
How did conciousness rise from evolutionary processes?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What banged during the the big bang?
It doesn't matter! Because in another universe everything true here is false over there!
Conciousness succeeded here but not over there!
There is no purpose or reason! The evidence will be in! You wait and see. Us scientists will be proven right!
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
That's enough trolling ant.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
Oh sure. Now I'm trolling.Interbane wrote:That's enough trolling ant.
It doesn't matter if the general population here dishes out their brand of sarcasm
And it's okay to be told I don't diserve "a pass."
Pretty fair environment here.
You need to take a good long look at all this before pass judgement.
I've asked reasonable questions in other posts that were complete ignored
Wha a Cop-out.
I dont care. It's predictable to be banned with prejudice from an echo chamber
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: Dawkins and Tyson video
Ant, I thought this was a trolling comment by you before I read the moderator's warning.ant wrote:Oh I get it. You're interested in doing away with theories of an intellegent designer because its unscientific to think such thoughts without evidence, but it's not unscientific to consider the possibility of a Megaverse because the evidence is in the bank for that one regardless of our inability to apply our powers of observation.
Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!
The difference here between ID and multiverse theory is about agenda. Intelligent design aims to fraudulently promote creationist ideas as a confusing cover for traditional belief in a false supernatural Christian myth. As such, ID fails the first hurdle of scientific method, the Ockham's Razor principle that we should not postulate unnecessary entities. ID fails the test, because evolution shows that a designer is an unnecessary entity. Design is inherent to nature, and requires no external entity to make complete sense.
The megaverse may be idle speculation, but at least it is compatible with the process of causality observed by science. There is no evidence for a megaverse and no one says there is, as far as I am aware. All they say is that it is possible, unlike ID. You should watch out for exaggerated lies like "evidence is in the bank".