EPTOn October 30 2015 04:04 frazzle wrote:
That Carson twitter feed led me to this gem.
That Carson twitter feed led me to this gem.
Talk about overreaching. Jesus Christ.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2462
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
Talk about overreaching. Jesus Christ. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
On October 30 2015 04:55 Introvert wrote: Tyson is his own brand of idiot, so I suppose I get your perspective on that (not mine). At least I think. By brand of idiot you mean godsend to astrophysics and science education? If you actually mean that NdGT is an idiot, I would like you to please elaborate. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 00:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Ehhhhh..... http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hello-you-people-know-lot-about-trucks-363077 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340 http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a39031/trump-fourth-grade-level/ http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/10/21/analysis-donald-trump-talks-to-voters-at-a-fourth-grade-level/ That's not what the research says  I don't believe in research. Is this stuff about fleish-kincaid reading level or something? That's as dumb as the Freedom Index measure :p. On October 30 2015 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I feel like we can pretty much objectively say she was worse than the other CEOs, because the other CEOs still have a job and a company. She doesn't. She lost hers. I guess I think these things are a bit more arbitrary and random than you do. You realize that this same logic can be applied to say that people who are successful got that way because they were competent and worked hard and that not being successful is proof that you weren't and didn't  On October 30 2015 01:00 xDaunt wrote: Cruz is probably the smartest of the bunch. Studies have shown that he speaks at the highest level of the candidates. I also think you're shortchanging Carson. From what I've seen of him, he's remarkably thoughtful. I don't believe "studies." See above. I think that I am personally a much better judge of intelligence than "studies." Carson is a complete moron, I have no idea why you would think that. He's not thoughtful he's just slow... On October 30 2015 01:43 farvacola wrote: I think the topic of Ted Cruz's (and Carson's, for that matter) "intelligence" is an interesting opportunity for folks to confront the very real fact that many of the professions we are taught to associate with intelligence are, in fact, full of very skilled idiots. QFT On October 30 2015 05:11 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: you can't make a 350 foot vessel watertight without some sort of nails. I'm pretty sure this is not true. There's a really good book I read called "The Sea and Civilization" which talks about all kinds of ship construction in the Indian Ocean which didn't use nails. Perhaps they were not 350 footers but I think they were pretty big. You might be surprised! On October 30 2015 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: By brand of idiot you mean godsend to astrophysics and science education? If you actually mean that NdGT is an idiot, I would like you to please elaborate. He's an utter moron. He's one of those people who raises Science to the level of religious idolatry. It's really embarrassing. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Can someone explain why conservatives are so against "intellectuals"? Is it due to how they don't want to treat an 'intellectual' as an authority figure or what? In some sort of anti-authoritarian sort of way it makes sense but then you miss the point that certain people are experts in their field and can speak on topics with authority. But then I've always held the view that I want someone smarter and better than myself to be in power, not an 'average' person, the right seem to fawn over people that are well below-average though. *shrug* EDIT: I mean, I can only tolerate Tyson's hyper-enthusiasm for so long before it annoys the shit out of me but that doesn't make him an idiot/moron. @notesfromunderground I've always thought Tyson could be quite harsher on the religion vs science question and such, to me he is quite tame and purposely avoids bringing it up unless asked directly. He doesn't even come close to others who do similar science education work as him like Dawkins and Krauss. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
Tyson is not an intellectual, he's an entertainer and a clown. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
He's an utter moron. He's one of those people who raises Science to the level of religious idolatry. It's really embarrassing. Well that explains a lot lol. Yeah I suppose if you don't appreciate facts and data and science, you're not going to like a leading scientist. Raising science awareness and promoting proper academic education is pretty much the opposite of peddling religion, because of its content. And being passionate for something doesn't inherently make you an idiot, especially if that something is responsible for literally every single technological and medical and human advancement of all time. I'll just file that ridiculous claim- that NdGT is an idiot- where it belongs... under A for Absurd. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:23 notesfromunderground wrote: If you treat intellectuals as authority figures, then you are not an intellectual Wait, Ben Carson, is that you? Who the hell would you treat as an authority figure then, if not the experts? I feel like you're just trolling at this point, and looking through your post history it's hard to take you seriously. So I'm going to go ahead and ignore your comments about this topic from now on. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: for literally every single technological and medical and human advancement of all time. see, if you think this, you are the one who has a disdain for facts. You are a religious person, you just call your religion Science. "Science," if it exists, requires a radically skeptical epistemology. Tyson is concerned to promote the authority of Science. He promotes an anti-skeptical ideology. He is therefore an idiot. On October 30 2015 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Who the hell would you treat as an authority figure then, if not the experts? Nobody. You should trust nobody and nothing. Radical skepticism. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:23 notesfromunderground wrote: If you treat intellectuals as authority figures, then you are not an intellectual Tyson is not an intellectual, he's an entertainer and a clown. Depends. I would treat experts in their respective fields as authorities on topics. For example, I would consider Hawking an authority on black holes, etc. Authority doesn't mean that you take what they say as gospel and that the person can't be wrong, it just means you assume they know more about the topic than most everyone else. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:23 notesfromunderground wrote: If you treat intellectuals as authority figures, then you are not an intellectual Tyson is not an intellectual, he's an entertainer and a clown. His ability make science interesting for everyone is only mocked by those who completely lack that ability, but don't understand why. Which is funny when it comes to STEM fields, who pride themselves on being logic and reason based, but often mock anyone with a different skill set than them. Logic and reason pretty much end when they own egos might be threatened by anything. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:30 Plansix wrote: His ability make science interesting for everyone is only mocked by those who completely lack that ability, but don't understand why. Which is funny when it comes to STEM fields, who pride themselves on being logic and reason based, but often mock anyone with a different skill set than them. Logic and reason pretty much end when they own egos might be threatened by anything. This is my point. DPB, for instance, thinks that he believes in "facts" and "reason," but then he makes utterly absurd dogmatic claims like that something called "Science" is responsible for every good thing that ever happened in human history ever. It's just absurd. People need to take a step back and listen to themselves. The cult of Science types are complete hypocrites. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
"Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?" I have no problem with god using divine intervention to keep the arc floating since he apparently can flood the earth. I have a hard time though thinking Noah and his family can build a better boat then thousands of years of experts, or that god knows how to build a boat that won't sink that we've never been able to figure out, even then the issue of Noah only following god's orders comes into play and Since God's not talking to Carson It doesn't really support the point Carson thinks he's making. I mean there's a million examples of amateurs in science and stuff discovering or doing something that experts thought was impossible that he could have used instead. | ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:21 notesfromunderground wrote: I don't believe in research. Is this stuff about fleish-kincaid reading level or something? That's as dumb as the Freedom Index measure :p. I guess I think these things are a bit more arbitrary and random than you do. You realize that this same logic can be applied to say that people who are successful got that way because they were competent and worked hard and that not being successful is proof that you weren't and didn't I don't believe "studies." See above. I think that I am personally a much better judge of intelligence than "studies." Carson is a complete moron, I have no idea why you would think that. He's not thoughtful he's just slow... QFT I'm pretty sure this is not true. There's a really good book I read called "The Sea and Civilization" which talks about all kinds of ship construction in the Indian Ocean which didn't use nails. Perhaps they were not 350 footers but I think they were pretty big. You might be surprised! He's an utter moron. He's one of those people who raises Science to the level of religious idolatry. It's really embarrassing. You sound like a pretentious 14 year old. On October 30 2015 05:29 notesfromunderground wrote: see, if you think this, you are the one who has a disdain for facts. You are a religious person, you just call your religion Science. "Science," if it exists, requires a radically skeptical epistemology. Tyson is concerned to promote the authority of Science. He promotes an anti-skeptical ideology. He is therefore an idiot. Nobody. You should trust nobody and nothing. Radical skepticism. Science is merely an attempt to rationally explain the world. Things happen in our universe regardless of whether or not we understand why and how, science is simply an explanation of the why or how. It isn't a belief system and there's nothing to be skeptical about. If you don't believe something is true, then fucking read how someone came to the conclusion it was. Everything in science is contentious, strictly speaking. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5009 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
I mean you are right for example that there are questions about abiogenesis and one must be quite skeptical when talking about topics like that or string theory or the like. But then when you talk about other things like evolution or gravity or heliocentricity, there is no debate or uncertainty there (except on some smaller points in some cases) and science has 'authority' on those topics. Scientific discoveries/theories/'facts' work similar to mathematical proofs in that way. The vast majority of people can't solve the difficult unsolved mathematical proofs, but if a mathematician does and then all of his peers look at it and the vast majority of them say 'yep hes got it right' then you assume that it is right, same with science. Scientists, like mathematicians, love nothing more than proving each other wrong/proving themselves right, so when all of the people in the field agree that someone got it right, they are probably right. EDIT: Philosophy is interesting in its own right. The problem is when philosophers impose themselves on scientific questions, or vice versa I guess. At this point they are really dealing with two different types of questions, science deals with questions that have 'actual'/empirical answers while philosophy doesn't ^^. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:32 notesfromunderground wrote: This is my point. DPB, for instance, thinks that he believes in "facts" and "reason," but then he makes utterly absurd dogmatic claims like that something called "Science" is responsible for every good thing that ever happened in human history ever. It's just absurd. People need to take a step back and listen to themselves. The cult of Science types are complete hypocrites. You are being completely hyperbolic on the subject and misstating many Tyson's beliefs. Edit: I didn't notice the comment about "Radical skepticism". LOL. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote: Tyson does the Carl Sagan thing of making science mystical. Moreover, he's a fan of scientism and completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about. Such as? | ||
|
Yurie
12128 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:38 Kickstart wrote: Scientists, like mathematicians, love nothing more than proving each other wrong/proving themselves right, so when all of the people in the field agree that someone got it right, they are probably right. I had a professor talk about the output from solar cells compared to the input from the sun (effect in English?). Then sounding gleeful when he denied people from getting published for getting that simple math wrong (on purpose) and showing higher than real figures. Some people showing > 100% when the best in the world are a bit above 40% currently. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Some of these posts are literally going to give me cancer | ||
| ||
