Dexter wrote:I heard a scientist littered the other day. Another one didn't leave the toilet seat down.

Why does Dawkins hate religious people so much?

Define "religious people"

Then we can talk about the justification for hating them.

Seems like science hooker is out there doing her best to get people engaged in what's happening in the world of science, From the portions of her twitter feed and facebook page I looked at, she's not a declared anti-theist, does that mean she gets some sort of seal of approval?.

In my normal turn of daily affairs it is only I that on occasion brings up the names of Dawkins, Krauss, Neil D. Tyson, or any others so often referenced to here on BT, Its not likely science even comes up in a typical conversation, I drop the names when for me there is a connection just to see if there is recognition of these controversial people and there is none. People will engage, and it seems to me that there is enjoyment of, scientific conversation and any facts related, but I don't often get the impression that the names associated with the work are that big a deal, everyone has learned about Einstein but do they think about gravitational waves?. (recently just confirmed by the way).

Go back and look at the author of the articles twitter and facebook page, there's some really cool stuff there but not many followers, someday, maybe, but not at this time. I hope she gets all the popularity for science and herself she craves.( though I'm certain she's not in it for personal popularity, or is she?).

If NERC wants an enthused public then they and many other science organizations and those associated should drop or ignore the God debate and just get on with the scientific area of work they set out to do, Isn't that the real rub? the God debate, it is a fine one on dedicated forums like this, but the public in general, from my experience, simply is not interested in circular debate over deeply held or shallow held, religious or non-religious belief in the existence of God. (however God be defined).

The names; Dawkins, Krauss, Tyson, Lennox just don't ring a bell outside communities who have sought them out.

How does one eat an elephant?

Here's an update:

Boaty McBoatface won by a landslide.
However, the arrogant snobs in charge will likely reject it because of the "serious nature" of the work the boat will be performing.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... nment.html


Continue to be snobs with all us regular people.
Don't expect any interest in the serious work you do, and how cool it is, any time soon.

Also, don't waste the plebs time with these phony participation contests.

I luv Boaty McBoat Face, but I doubt very many people expected for one nano-second that a $287 million (USD) research vessel would actually be named that. It is indeed a crushing blow to making science interesting. I can just hear a 12 year old student saying "I wanted to be an astronaut, but now that vessel will not be named Boaty McBoat Face....Fuck it, I'll just become a heroin addict!"

What does the cost have to do with it?
Is there a certain dollar value that when reached should exclude the common folk from participating in such a small part of an enterprise like this?

I made the mistake of opening the website of The Science Hooker at work. I was greeted by planet sized boobs, fetish underwear, and dual flipped birds. Yeah now THAT'S the way to generate interest in science! Especially among 14 year old boys... (I think I managed to close that site quick enough before any co-workers walked by - whew!)

If we have to pick a stupid-ass name like Boaty McBoatface to make science engaging to people, that tells me that adults have the brains of children with ADD when it comes to science. I have an impossible time believing that giving this vessel this sick abortion of a name is going to make such sluggards any more attentive to the research than a proper name. What next? Should we paint a big fucking clown face on it with a big red noise that honks loudly in the fog?

If the public is this unengaged with science that we have to resort to this puerile crap to get its attention like a photographer has to do to get a baby to smile for a picture then how much does the public understand about the world around them? That's what science does--it enables you to understand the world around you. If you do not understand science, you do not understand the world you are living in. If you do not understand the world you are living--and you are also an adult--turning science into the butt of a childish joke is not going to make it all better.

Why doesn't the public instead engage science instead of the other way around. This could be accomplished in ways as reading books, watching documentaries, going to school and paying attention--stuff we should have been doing as 10-year-olds so that we wouldn't end up 50-year-olds with no better understanding of science than 10-year-olds. Maybe WE are the fucking problem and not science--huh?? I mean it's barely possible! BUT, as we all know, it's always someone else's fault that we are fast turning into a race of oversized paperweights who can't even sign our names in cursive anymore. Damn you science!

If you go into cardiac arrest after this last post of yours, i wont be too surprised.

Well I for one am a science enthusiast, almost 50 years old, relatively intelligent and totally a fan of "Boaty McBoatface." That name makes me smile every time I read it.

In fact I have to wonder what becomes of the name "Boaty McBoatface" if it is ultimately rejected. Can anyone use it?

I almost want to run out and buy my own research vessel just to name it Boaty McBoatface. That's a damn cool name.