Can You TRUST Science Popularizers? Joe Rogan & Brian Keating Debate
Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com to win a meteorite 💥
In this clip from The Joe Rogan Experience, Joe Rogan and I expose the truth about science popularizers and pop science! Enjoy.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 KZhead: kzhead.info...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #joerogan
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Do we really need professional science commutators or is that the job of scientists?
Professionals are needed: your thesis is very much wrong. A quick google search states that 50% of a movie's budget goes to marketing. Why do diamond wedding rings exist? Marketing. Why is blue for boys and pink for girls (now)? Marketing. Another google search says almost 20% of the US GDP is marketing and advertising. What gets someone elected? Marketing. The world runs on B$, not merit, nor education. We exist in a brief interlude where science is valued because of a confluence of political and market systems. As the golden age of Islam has shown, it can all change on a dime. Thanks to what? Marketing.
Don't talk about Brian cox like you have accomplished half of what he has. Or have half the knowledge he does. Who even are you 😅😅😅😅😅
Apparently if nature is still being described as a script from god.
If we want any chance of explaining quantum mechanics we'll need science commutators, otherwise Poisson brackets will do fine 😉
@@ChristopherCurtis although i agree to most of it. Science is not a commodity as the other things you jave described.
Wasn't it Einstein who said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"?
Einstein was a media creation. He was a fraud.
without spendig 7 minutes too:)
thomas sowell has a book called visions of the anointed that explains in detail how intellectuals will assume their competency on subjects outside their intellectual purview. meaning they think im a biologist of course i can comment on economics a good example of this is noam chomsky is a linguist and yet talks about economics all the time. what makes him an expert on economics.
@@bastaitPerfectly stated.
ty im simply quoting thomas sowell i stand on the shoulders of giants. @@Iohannis42
Scientists had a moral obligation to speak up during covid......FAIL
They would lose their government funding 😂
A moral obligation assumes those obligated are moral.
Their job is to publish studies, not to take sides in highly politicized debates.
Scientists don’t just pull answers off the shelf from a book of answers. It will have a lagtime to produce statistics then defining what happened and try to make sense of it. Anyone who pretends to know before the situation unfolded is like a broken clock, right by accident, lucky on that occasion or even wrong or not being truthful.
They did... They spoke up for the tyrants. Science is its own religion, wrapped in an insular social club that still wants to please their masters/overseers.
because society pays more attention to celebrities and money rather than knowledge
😞
-society- you
Thats how society and economics works. I dont get this gov today. Its like now everyone has to be in space/ufo group have a say in anything as everyone's purchasing power parity disappears. I myself have to brush up for god knows who and why. Even though i know whatever i find out will not be sold at mass scale.
Jordan Peterson tan with that thread more perfect than anyone.
That’s the most autistic thing I’ve ever heard.
My PhD dissertation advisor used to say to me, if you can't go home and explain this to your grandmother it's not worth doing
As mine pointed out, be elegant. And if you look up the term elegant, one definition is "simple". I taught stats and I can teach pretty much the "essence" of any statistic to a 10 year old. But also? A non-trivial percent of those practicing say, statistics, don't understand basic concepts. A great example is the p-value. Shocking how many totally misunderstand that...and they are researchers.
If she's still awake after five hours of particle physics?
Dunno what kind of PhD you were doing, but there's not a single flying chance of me explaining the applications of rational homotopy theory to the topology of non-negatively curved Riemannian manifolds to a single soul... It's possible in principle if someone would sit there for many hundreds of hours, but that's silly.
@@geometerfpv2804 I bet Matt O'Dowd could. Your comment is literally the embodiment of the 'failure' Dr. Keating was explaining here but if you don't think Dr. Keating knows what he's talking about, maybe you'll listen to Richard Feynman? He famously said "if you can't explain a theory in a simple way understandable to kids, then you didn't understand it well." If Dr. Feynman was here right now would you look him in the face and say "but you don't understand, what I study is much more complex than any concept you've had to explain before"?
I studied Finance and i had been studied Micro and Macroeconomic in my freshman year in college. My educational advisor had been giving me quiz-like, essay-like homeworks likes explaining OMO in 5 sentences; analyzing how minimum-wage policy affects the economy and work market from Employers’ point of view and Employees’s point of view,… I didn’t understand why he made us Economist in my freshman year but when i graduated and joined the labor market, i feel grateful that he had been my Educational Advisor.
They weren't "popularizing" science. They were promoting a political agenda.
Exactly, thank you! Even where buildings are built and who lives where, and in what, is a policy agenda. Without the publics best interest
You are clueless. No idea about life and government. I am embarrassed for you.
Haha. The hypothetical scenario of Neil Tyson trying to explain "gender fluidity" in a room full of scientists who AREN'T from/haven't heard of/aren't into contemporary (Wacky) Western culture/trends comes to mind. I would love to see him try and explain that with confidence in a room full of Japanese, Chinese, Indian etc physicists. Yeah we all know not
yep like Brett Weinstein promoting anti-vax stuff
@@Preetvndmore research needed. He has been proven right repeatedly...
I'm in health care. My anger is when companies, people, government will not admit when they are wrong when they evidence is very self apparent. That trust is fu......ed!
what do you do in healthcare? do you have a medical degree?
its not wrong its beneficial to them. thats why they like our current mercantilism economy.
I'm also in health care, and so is my wife. Just last year, well after all the Covid panic had calmed down and things felt almost "back to normal," I was diagnosed with Covid and sent home from work one day (I had sniffles but otherwise felt fine). They made my wife test for Covid as well since I had it, but she did not have symptoms and she did not test positive. Regardless, they sent her home for quarantining and the most nonsensical bullshit, they let me come back to work 5 days sooner than she was allowed to. It's all nonsense and no one in charge in any field, medical or otherwise, seems to know what they're doing anymore.
@@lxxvx you're one experience does not mean that everything else is nonsense you fucking nitwit. Working in healthcare in having an understanding of genealogy immunology and virology is not the same thing just because you work in healthcare doesn't mean you have the credentials necessary to make such ridiculous assertions
education is the crux society is balanced on. @@lxxvx
"We don't have UFC popularizers" while sitting across from Joe Rogan 🤣🤣🤣
Joe: “Jamey pull up a video of a bear fighting a scientist”
That's why the more clever ones among the scientists are into water bears, also known as Tardigrades.
I hope it's Neil De Gasbag Tyson that Bear is fighting.
@@danielmeuler2877 The bear would give up after being gaslit into an inferiority complex by Neil.
Sweet comment. Totally on track. Bring on the bear.
hahaha
"Science advances one funeral at a time" Max Planck 😂
Exactly.
Or to paraphrase Jeremy Irons as John Tuld in “Margin Call,” “… talk to me like I’m … a golden retriever.”
This sentiment is self-fulfilling. One can pick apart Planck too :D
Nice…
The purpose of DEI is to allow for the installation of unqualified but entirely controllable people in positions in the "middle" that will do the bidding of those in control.
Marxism is so silly but deadly.
The people who complain about DEI usually are just insecure about their own short comings and need to find a boogeyman to blame for their failure. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps You'll be ok.
@@outlawthagod Whooosh.
@@outlawthagod LOL. OR... Or... the people that advocate for DEI are those who KNOW they could never achieve success on their own merit and need constant help to keep up with the average in society. So... Yeah... You wont be OK without it. But that's OK too. :) (hint, no subs, no views, no talent, no achievements of that nearly illiterate dude in the mirror.) What you fail to see.... (DEI fan, so, not surprising) is that most people who are against DEI are those who contribute(you know, successful on their merits) that are concerned at the rising corruption and incompetence in every sector, brought to us by DEI. Finally, when you advocate for 4ft Asians to be included in the NBA at a rate 5x their proportion in society, I might be convinced you're anything other than a self serving shakedown artists who will say anything to keep the grift going. It's coming to an end my friend. Enjoy.
@@outlawthagod ahahahahahahaha... say that when you are directly impacted by it, say, a surgeon? maybe a pharmacist to make up prescriptions for you? but instead, you got someone who is not qualified and got it due to DEI. That is it simplified and it is having an effect on wider society.
I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson lost a lot of respect for turning his back on science and siding with the woke
None of that happened….
@@mattb8412 open your eyes
Yes. Over the past several years I've found him almost incoherent in his explanations and knowledge claims.
@@mattb8412 unless theres some really clever ai involved, yes it did. his latest opinions are less science, and more 'THE SCIENCE (tm)'
@@mattb8412actually,all of it happened. And is still happening.
Experts exist to be questioned, not to be trusted.
If you’re a scientist and aren’t able to explain what you do in layman terms, then you don’t truly understand what it is that you do.
Agreed
I don't really agree with that. Communication is an entirely separate skill, and you can fully understand a subject and not know how to communicate it well. You need to understand what it is you do *_and_* know how to communicate well in order to explain what you do in layman terms.
I think you mean educator. A scientist at the highest level of their industry has no obligation to explain anything to the average person who is dumber than a rock
Sadly so.@@NobleVagabond2552
@@NobleVagabond2552 I disagree. At some point that science will need to be APPLIED and MAINTAINED and SUPPORTED and none of that will be done by geniuses. Otherwise the science is just mental masturbation.
"Trust me, I'm a science populariser!" No thanks.
I'm explaining a field I know nothing about on TV.... I'm a scientist so trust me..
When NDK said that gender is fluid, he lost all credibility with me. I never listened to anything he said since then.
Richard Feynam nailed it when he proposed to take something that's hard to understand and try to clarify it in your mind by explaining it as if you were talking to a child.
Wasn't it a barmaid he was talking about?
You then run into the issue of guys like NDT just talking down to people, which is part of the whole issue to begin with. There are ways of explaining complex ideas without treating everyone who isn’t in your field like a five year old who has no basic logic or reasoning skills. NDT just treats everyone like they’re totally dumb, which turns a lot of people off. It seems that he thinks he is so mentally superior to everyone else that he feels like he must treat just about everyone as if they’re complete simpletons. That is the issue here. Of course there are a lot of idiots out there, but I think the majority of people who are even interested in the sort of topics that people like NDT discuss have a greater ability to make sense out of complex ideas than the super-elite, God-tier genius people like NDT like to think. He just has such an elitist attitude that I can’t stand.
Yes and as simple as I can make the statment question everything and when you are certain its true question it again.
@@BanterMaestro2-vh5vn you really don’t think he talks down to people? Have you seen him in interviews or on pods like Rogan? He constantly acts like everyone around him has no capacity to understand what he says without dumbing it down to an insulting level. I’ll grant that he’s a lot better when he is just on his own enthusiastically talking about something, but the second you put him in a room with someone interviewing him he immediately adopts this elitist attitude that is unbearable. He constantly interrupts with his pseudo-philosophical epiphanies, can’t accept criticism and tries to discredit anyone who has the nerve to disagree with him on a subject even when it’s outside his expertise, has no real interest in having intellectual debates because he knows he is always right even when he isn’t. I don’t care where he’s from, he’s just annoying in interviews and pods.
Feynman was asked to define what magnetism was, at a lecture, and he blathered on for 15 minutes, before basically saying “I could explain it..but you’re not smart enough to understand” No one ever defined it. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.
One thing I've noticed is that many 'wrong' answers are awfully plausible because despite being incorrect they are curve fitted to massive slabs of data that make them look correct. A good example is a meticulously well prepared stock trading system. Back tested against massive historical data sets. The model is perfect on ALL historical data. *Still loses money*. The problem with science is we have some of these 'stacks' of self reinforcing, momentum driven incorrect areas. We always have had them and will continue to build them. Every single area of science has be torn down and had the fundamental building block ripped out and replaced again and again over the last few hundred years. At NO point is science EVER in a position where it's given the benefit of the doubt. NEVER. It has to prove itself as useful with result. The models HAVE to predict the future. Flaws, deviations, the happen then that means we either have a small error or and *entirely broken model* that just happens to look correct, because that's the best that specific scientist was capable of. Curve fitting science to data is the same mental approach as pseudo science and sadly, many scientists are operating right on the edge of pseudo science and we're giving them money and a free pass. Science influencers are awfully close to the way cult leader operate. I was listening to NGT explain something about dark matter *is* that was flat out made up. I had to unsub. Dark matter isn't a 'thing' is a gap between models and observation. It would be more correct to say that the model was wrong because it does not predict the observation. That's falsification. But to admit that the model is wrong, wrong by almost an order of magnitude would be to once again, tear physics down the the foundations. We don't want to do that because we have no replacement that isn't also equally flawed. So cult leaders run around squawking about what *is* and hand wave off the bald faced evidence that they are hand waving off the falsification the way a garage zero point energy hack my do. "We'll keep tying to make the broken model work" Add hacks and patches. Lets add some constants!
Excellent analogy of the "cult leaders". I made this comment elsewhere and I want to paste in here below your comment because I think it's another aspect of what you are talking about. I know that we're not saying the same thing exactly, but I think these phenomenon run in parallel within the community...... "I think Joe and Brian's discussion focuses on just a small aspect of the whole conversation around science as of late. My personal perception is that science, the scientific community, has not learned to recognize it's own hubris and it's own failings when it comes to the politics of research and academia. In fact, I would bet that most people in the fields of research would just flat out deny that this is even an issue at all. That to me, is just a kind of blindness and arrogance that turns a lot of people off from the scientific community. Of course, that is not true across the board, but I think it's an area of concern about which the scientific community is in complete denial because "well, those doubters just don't know. They are suffering from ignorance.""
I agree with that . Sadly, scientists nowadays have a high prestige comparable to high priests in European Middle Age You cannot be right if a high priest affirms the opposite . Moreover , you are publicly condemned . Science is the scientific method , science is not whatever a scientist says . As Feynman said , a scientist, no matter how prestigious is, is nothing without validating data. Any affirmation or "model" is nothing if it is not validated, repeatedly and by various researchers. In the comments of this video , someone laughed at other guy because this had an opinion different to the opinion of a "famed" scientist. That is just the wrong approach!
Excellent post. I personally know a researcher who has told me that any deviation from the current most popular hypotheses can invite some pretty vicious backlash from his colleagues.
@@karpabla Exactly. Yet, the 'weakness' in the scientific method is that the perspective \ knowledge of a person who builds out the falsification may be incomplete. In addition my gut instinct(+observation) is that it's entirely possible for us to build mathematical models that are workable until you hit the edge cases, and then the model breaks. Then we use that model anyway for long term projections and have to patch the holes because of error accumulation. We seem to be really good at building towers of logic on a 'mostly correct' base and ignoring the possibility that we could be thinking about things the wrong way. A small example. I remember reading about redshift\etc many decades ago. I bought in to it until the rise of dark matter. Then I started wondering... we had mad a logical jump that redshift is due only to the 'passage of time\traversal of space' and hence we can use it as litmus test on distance. This essentially built the whole expansion model as all the other factors supporting the big bang appear to be almost circumstantial by comparison. Yet, the expansion we measure with redshift infers that we have more mass to drive the mysterious expansion that's inferred by redshift quantity. If however redshift had another cause the dark matter calculation imbalance would not exist and the galaxies that should not exist problem would not be a problem. I'm not saying that 'everyone is wrong' more that we're betting the farm on redshift and it's a rocky position. We are essentially saying that a particle\wave that travels at light speed and which actually experiences no time at all in it's own reference frame 'wears down' \ 'gets tired' as a result of the passage of time as it traverses space. But without have an internal time reference the wave\particle leaves and arrives simultaneously. IMHO, we didn't throw out Newtonian physics with relativities ascent because it works well enough. I think in our lifetimes we'll see the big bang model torn down and replaced with something better. I think that all of science has this 'problem' and frankly I'm ok with it because each time we reset and start again we get closer to the truth. If you want to see how long this can go on for however look in to the resistance to plate tectonics. That idea was still being rejected in the 80's. The defenders of the old model didn't just give up because science showed them a better perspective, meaning they were not being scientific.
Well said. Dark energy / Dark matter should be regarded as no less than a total embarrassment for modern physicists. Yet it won't stop them from egotistically pretending that no one but them could possibly have any idea that might be valid. Like sure, they've failed utterly, and yet they're still the experts so you need to crawl down and lick their boots. Just ridiculous. And the reproducibility crisis is even worse & is across all fields.
I always judge how well someone comprehends a topic by how well they explain it to someone that doesnt have the slightest idea.
Remember that this is what teachers do for a living, so when people think they don't know the material, they are the ones who know it so well that they can teach it to children.
@@josephfernandez5566 they use a book with answers ...
@@NinjaNerosis Maybe for tests, but to teach the material, you have to know what you are talking about.
Liars are specialized in explaining well.
@@dragonmartijn Good liars can only fool ignorant people. They can't explain things they don't understand well.
well, that first question, why do we need science popularizers... Its pretty simple to answer. Its because science is complicated! someone comes along that can "translate" it to plain english with not just easier language but analogies, then people like it.
if science influencer don't exists it would be very difficult to get people into the field and funding
That's just nonsense and you know it
@@user-vt4hd8hb4vtell that to religious apologists who are waiting for apocalypse and judgement. Some people doesn't think evolution is real and earth is flat
@@user-vt4hd8hb4v it’s more like there are agendas to push. And none of legitimate scientists want to do that jobs. So the “council” needs these influencers.
_"We don't have UFC popularizers."_ *AS HE IS TALKING TO JOE ROGAN!*
And what do the fighters do before the fight? Popularizing with a stand off.
The science popularizers are more charismatic than a typical scientist, that's the point. If for nothing else, than to encourage children to go into science, which is very needed.
Why do we need more scientists?
@@benvoiles9166 because we have waaay too many idiots that need educating.
No more Tyson, no more Nye... enough BS!!!!
@@benvoiles9166 That's a good question because when I was studying biology, physics, chemistry and geology, I was told those fields were flooded. Also, grades get fixed starting in first grade, and certain children, or families get academically robbed, sometimes unanimously. I still think, in theory, we need the fields to be flooded and everybody trying to be a scientist in case someone innovates.
@@benvoiles9166 You don't need to "go into Science" but it is extremely important for everyone to understand Science, so that they can make their own informed choices about medicine, the environment et cetera. Just as it is extremely important for everyone to learn History and Law, so that we will not forever be relying on the "experts" to tell us how to think and how to act. After all, isn't that the purpose of education? (I know it's not really: it's to pigeonhole people into categories so they can be well-functioning cogs in the machine)
Lets start by confirming that science isn't a trademark and it is up for intellectual debate. The problem with Tyson is he comes up with a subjective answer for something and wants his will forced upon the public without debate or due process.
Einstein quote: if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.
Money ruin’s science and advances science, it’s tough. As a Texan I had flashbacks when you mentioned HAIL…..
Just go back to selling mountain dew and put halle berry on it. I bet you will sell 500 million at least.
@@krzysztofkowalski2816 What? I think Mountain Dew is from West Virginia Appalachian Mountains so not sure how that has anything to do with Texas. We made Dr. Pepper
Nobel Prize winners and real lab scientists are terrible popularizers. They are interesting to educated laymen and science professionals. But few of them can explain what they're doing to the general public.
"Nobel Prize winners and real lab scientists are terrible popularizers." So are black guys with 100 IQ's but that didn't stop them from hiring neil tyson.
nor do they care to.
Total horsesheet!
what's that have to do with anything? Why do we need people selling science to the public? We need it because now political partisans have hijacked the word science to brand all their bullshit dogma with the word. "Men become women when they put on a dress. Trust us, it's science". "Unborn people aren't actually people. It's science". "The genders have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses. that's what science says". "Different races don't have different characteristics, , ,according to science"
Most just stick to themselves and there work And most don’t know how to break itDown to where the public can understand
Any scientist who denies basic human biology I will not trust. That’s where I put down Neil Tyson.
The fact that trans and non-binary people have existed for hundreds of years proves that it is you who don't understand human biology. Hint: It's not all about what's in your pants.
That’s just science denial with extra steps…. Why did anyone think that an area of study with 60+ years under the belt was somehow going to align with 2 year old shit takes by grifters?
Most people don't care for science. So it is very important for us to have Scientist influencers. It is not perfect for very much need. Keep the Science Popularizers!!
Teach a person how to cook and then teach them about plants and animals the biology, that also leads to geography and physics and you can also delve into the chemistry.. Teach them wood working, metal work, pottery. ...they'll be interested in taking the knowledge further. If you suddenly start talking about atoms most will not be interested cause who cares about things that doesn't effect their interests.
Most people who don't care for science, won't care to watch science influencers. Those that _do care_ can only get misguided by selfish pricks like Neil deGrasse Tyson claiming they actually know what they are talking about.
We do have Tiktok popularizers. The Chinese government.
Except the american version is staffed full of US military and intelligence just like all social media companies.
Literally all influencers are popularizers or whatever made up thing you think.
Isaac Asimov was a science popularizer , not a scientist, long before the Internet. He admitted he didn't have "what it takes" to be a scientist, but he was able to communicate an enthusiasm and interest in science far better than the 'real' scientists. If you had no science foundations , he could open the doors, teach you the language and get you excited about the journey . Most real scientists can't do that.
He was being modest. Any scientist worth their salt...any expert in any field worth their salt...will de-emphasize their knowledge not out of false modesty or even modesty but out of a recognition of the complexity of their field, popularized in the Dunning Kruger effect.
An Asimov Quote: "Arthur Clarke says that I am first in science and second in science fiction in accordance with an agreement we have made. I say he is first in science fiction and second in science." Both of these people, regardless of what they are/were made science and science fiction more interesting, several science popularizers are worth their weight in gold provided they are actually raking in the interest of others who may not have originally been interested, typically by explaining things in an easier to understand way.
Brian has a great eye for skepticism in a polite way. Love his podcasts when they debate controversial science like string theory and foreign policy and yes monetary theories.
People like Tyson and Nye are cultivators of interest and curiosity in a general subject many think is over their heads. In school, students get frustrated because they don't know a subject. What they need to be shown is they are not in the classroom to know it, but to learn it.
In school students get frustrated, because the subjects are explained in wrong ways. Or not explained at all and you're told to just memorize some arcane algorithm, instead of being taught how it actually works. Tyson just pushes the topic at hand in a very smug fashion, often poorly and almost always sidetracking into things completely irrelevant to the topic. He's not in to keep the interest and curiosity of the subject, but himself.
I used to be a fan of NDT before the world got a glimpse of how fake he is. Many real physicists are far better at promoting science because they’re clearly awesome, just like Prof Keating. 😎
I always prefered Michio Kaku and a few others from that era that fakes like NDT and that "Science Guy" popped up and got pushed out. Suzuki is another one btw.
Dr. Keating just said in this interview, that your sentiments about NDT is 💩
Never understood the popularity of NDT. His programs where never transcendental, that is he never approached the science in a particular novel way. He seemed to just state facts. Yeah, the facts were interesting, and often just common knowledge. He never came close to the heights of Sagan, Jacob Bronowski, or James Burke. Those TV series were stunning in their approach to Science and Technology. NDT is slightly more important than a Narrator for PBS's "Nova" and I suspect that most of his shows are written by other authors.
How fake is he?
He’s a raging narcissist
I like people who tell the truth even if it’s a pile of not feel good
Back in the 80s I had an economics professor who told us "if you can't explain your theory to your wife, you don't understand your theory." It wasn't a shot against our non-economist wives. It wax a warning to us as budding economists.
Sam Harris is a big example of someone who hasn't done any serious science work. But regularly takes others and almost highjacks it as his own opinions.
From what I’ve seen scientists may have the biggest ego out of anyone, bigger than professional athletes famous people. Egos so big they will put down colleagues and not look at information just so they can be right and THE EXPERT.
Doctors have the biggest.
Really? Do you feel that dumb when NDT talks? You should not feel offended just because you dont understand half of what he says😂😂😂
@@joseribeiro9564 I never said I was offended or felt dumb when listening to them speak I was simply trying to make the point that if they want to be the top expert in there field they should be willing to consider all information and not conclude they have it right no matter what is discovered.
As an (ex) physicist I totaty disagree with the ego thing. As a programmer, I tend to believe in it to. Perhaps the greatest athlete of all time was Michael Jordan. A big part of that was his ego. He so wanted to be seen to be the best that he would practice the day after the season ended. He pushed himself because of his ego, and his response when he was embarrassed was to come back even harder. Trash talk him and he won't trash talk back. Instead he smiles and "posterizes" you. When you are in a group of egotistical scientists, knowing that if you say something stupid they will insult you and you will have a hard time recovering from that, you tend to be careful with what you say. It's Dunning-Kruger inoculation. Notice that DK became a phenomenon when "codes of conduct" came along that force people to stop insulting each other.
They’re so egotistical that they routinely gang up, ostracize, gate keep, censor and silence other scientists who test out hypotheses that don’t align with their own main stream narratives and theories. It’s a complete bastardization & mockery of what science is supposed to be.
I went to a talk where NDT was speaking. He could not answer one off the cuff question from the audience that had to do with science done within the past decade.
I don't believe that.
I believe it
I have a PhD and I find Neil DeDumbGrass Tyson irritating because I hate being talked down to.
I got excited for second when Brian said Gavin Newsom was a “former” governor, then I realized he just meant because joe moved out of CA. Then I was sad again.
😂
Science is difficult, life is becoming increasingly difficult because of all the stimuli, so people more then ever are limiting their minds to cope with it,
I find it interesting that morality (a non material thing) has to be the foundation of science (observing and repeating experiments of natural material). Another interesting thing that is bedrock for science is trust; we have to trust our minds, trust the laws of nature, trust the integrity of every component (mind and non-mind) involved in the experiment. In my opinion, this is why the Fathers of science believed in God.
His inability to understand that common people would have an issue. Or difficulty comprehending science and different attributes proves that we do need. These so-called science promoters. Like Neil Degrasse Tyson, you should be thanking this man instead of trying to break him down. It makes no sense and you can tell he's a hater
Having science promoters is not the issue. Carl Sagan was a great one. The specific problem is that those promoters such as Tyson and Nye are pushing an agenda, not being completely honest about science.
"Anyone who can't explain their position in a way that a child could understand, ... is either pulling your leg, or they don't know what they're talking about" -- Mark Twain (i think)
Way to go Einstein.
100% not true. Often times, someone who I'd explaining complex tasks to a child, is glossing over important processes in order to get the idea across. Try explaining all the parts that make a car run to a child, and then see if they can build a car.
The point is, if I went into detailing all those complexities to a child who has no knowledge of auto mechanics, then obviously I had no intention of helping the child understand about building cars. I would know I was simply boggling the child's mind, in order to sound impressive or whatever. DeGrasse Tyson for example, explains physics in a way people can understand, even if they never did any calculus. That shows that he actually intends to help folks understand. (granted, he does sprinkle in a bit of political propaganda now & again... apparently he has to do that in order to keep his position as a popularizer. Come to think of it, that's probably the main purpose behind the funding of popularizers. The real truth about them, HA!) @@artemiseritu
"We don't understand the Pauli exclusion principle because we can't explain it in simple words." Richard Feynman
@@thadtheman3751 or...
To be frank, I think a lot of the current science "popularizers" do a lot of damage. I can't tell you the number of times I've talked to people and they had the same misconceptions about physics because of things they'd heard from science "popularizers" that were so oversimplified that it was just plain wrong. I remember plenty of misconceptions that I, myself, had to unlearn while studying physics that I had picked up from science "popularizers."
But it did ultimately incite interest in physics no? Even if there are some misconceptions, the fact that you learned scientific topics even further and now know what the misconceptions are means that in a way the science communicators were successful in getting you interested in science.
Still way better to have some misconceptions, than to have no clue at all and therefore to believe in zodiac signs, religious fairytales how the earth was created and all other sorts of superstition.
Then again there's the amount and degree of lying that these "populizers" do...
Theyre just pastors for a religion. That is all
It would add some weight to your assessments if you could point out some of the "plenty of misconceptions that I, myself, had to unlearn while studying physics that I had picked up from science "popularizers."" A few specific examples from among the plenty of misconceptions, with the popularizers who led you astray, would be good.
Scientists (and the public in general) should be kissing the asses of science "popularists". If they weren't out there trying to make scientific concepts simple or interesting enough to get the average person's attention, then who would? Unfortunately that void is being mostly filled by grifters, bros, and people in general that don't have a clue wtf they are talking about.
NDT is living proof you can be educated far beyond your intelligence.
You don't have "movie, tiktok, etc" popularizers? Never seen a late night show interviewing a celebrity huh? Ever heard of "influencer"? Same difference as a science popularizer. They're all just different words for the same effect. A person trying to get your interest in a thing.
Comparing NDT and his peers to "influencers" is as insulting as it is inaccurate.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough yourself." I know that's a misquote by Einstein, but it carries real truth. Tyson was a great example too, because he has SO MUCH ARROGANCE it's truly insane. However, he often says things that are just outright dumb. I like to call him the dumbest scientist I know lol.
Carl Sagan started the popularization of science explained easier for the masses and all of these other guys are capitalizing on it.
Tyson's in the Club. He's just a Celebrity-Activist. He isn't a credible 'Scientist' at this point. 🙄
Covid taught us all that science is a religion. Pope Fauci told us point blank.
Man, if that is what you really think and what Brian supports then this channel is lost.
Because a lot of scientists have the charisma of a pencil or feel like talking to the average man is below them at least definitely in the past
I'm a geologist and have spent my career trying to describe deep time to people who think that 40 hours is a long work week. Thank you for mentioning how we need to get better with communication. Also, if you run out of meteorites, I've got bags and bags of them from 2 NSF field seasons in Antarctica. If it's a rock on the surface of the ice, it's from space.
I always get suspicious of people "sneak dissing" NDT. Sagan and Tyson have probably done more for science during one talk than this guy has over his entire career.
Brian Greene stated in a recent interview on KZhead that, after his daughter reported to him on an environmental talk given to her at school, we should "throw a spanner" in the works of our civilization. Such out-of-touch academics should be kept as far as possible from "the levers of power." Amen!
I died laughing reading this comment. Brian cox, who is undeniably way smarter than you & dedicated his entire life to research was wrong just bc you decided not to believe in climate change 😂 thank god we have people like Brian cox writing scientific papers & not you lmao
But they happen to be right most of the time and those in control of the levers of power ignore them at their peril.
@@daltonmoore233 Kung fu masters have studied Kung fu their entire lives and got their asses kicked by beginner MMA fighters. You made the mistake people are talking about. Effort and dedication does not equate to correctness. Your sacrifice means nothing..........only measurable provable results matter.
@@rogerphelps9939 Historically, mainstream science has always been wrong, or mostly wrong about everything until new technology, new data and new ideas are brought forth. It's not a bible...........there is no truth. Only ongoing learning. If we listened to the scientists and regarded them as holders of truth at any point in history, we'd still be in medieval times.
@@daltonmoore233 Man made climate change falling into the “belief” category is the problem. Scientific hypotheses that can be falsified are no longer valid hypotheses. It the simplicity of the scientific method. CO2 as a driver of climate change can be falsified, and therefore the hypothesis is incorrect. If current levels of CO2 are too high, what would you submit is the “right” level of CO2? Given that for most of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher and life on the planet was thriving, what is your answer to that? We’ve had higher temperatures at lower CO2 and glaciations with higher CO2- how would that be squared with those that push an anti-CO2 agenda? For decades, “scientists” have said that man is the cause of global cooling, then it was warming when the cooling ended. The Earth’s average temperature has remained stable. The CO2 grift has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with controlling and reducing the Earth’s population of humans.
Saying "No UFC popularizers" to Joe Rogan? It's nice when I can stop a video at 23 seconds and move on with my day.
The problem is that guys like Bill Nye and NDT, for example, get out of their lane and start holding opinions on political matters that they feel are advantageous to their careers. They become useful idiots for the political establishment in the same manner a pop star like Taylor Swift does.
The problem is when these popularizers venture out of their tiny little area of expertise. Just hear Neil D Tyson, for example, talk about anything other than astronomy, and it’s incredibly banal.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson affirmative action poster boy for ‘the science’.
Mr. Tyson….makes me question our educational system…..he supposedly knows the secrets of the universe….yet doesn’t know who is a woman.
Professor Brian Cox is NOT a science influencer.. .. he is an educator, a science lecturer who has a way of explaining things that a layman can understand with a voice and manner that captures the attention of even those who have no interest in the subject. He is the 1st to say that astrophysicists cannot say that any of their knowledge are facts, just that with the information available he is presenting the latest and most logical conclusions often backed up with mathematics and testing at labs such as the LHC (where he works aside from lecturing at the University of Manchester).
NDGT is an activist. Not a scientist.
There are paid popularizers of all the crap the guy listed. Dopes like Tyson aren't alone.
You shouldn't overestimate things. Science is one of them.
Nor should you underestimate things. Science is unquestionably one of them.
how so? what do you mean by overestimating science? which branch? which field of science?
My favorite “science educator” is Rebecca Watson, she only has a marketing degree but pretends that she is an authority of science
The people you said don’t exist, the popularizers, of other industries in fact exist. Marketting +any actor I would said or any famous person as we’ll involved with anything can be considered a “popularizer”
Every religion needs evangelists, especially where (public) funding is on the line.
popularizers have data to suipport the science they promote otherwise it wouoldnt be scientific... Religion makes up answers, science asks questinos and looks fgor the answers to those questions. If you think scientists just make shit up, then you fundamentally misunderstand the entire scientific process. FFS.
That's funny. Where does science get a moral obligation when it denies all Transcendent standards of morality?
The idea that Dr.Greene and others like him are unneccessary or lack value in communicating complex science in lay terms is patently absurd. WSF might be the most valuable thing on this platform, and I dont think teens and young adults are going to close tiktok to read research papers any time soon. These "popularizers" inspired myself and countless others to begin the process of understanding complex topics by putting us on the tracks. It's up to people to hit the gas and drive it down the line.
They are doing the same thing to Neil that they did to Dr. Fauci.
One of my favourite JRE convos in a very long line of memorable episodes. You, Stamets and the Weinsteins are my go to's for great intellectual talks that get my gears turning. As a writer, listening to these conversations is endlessly inspirational.
Love to hear this! Keep in touch Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list ✉️
@@DrBrianKeating You got it.
Stephen Hawking was both one of the greatest spokespersons for the sciences I can remember in our lifetime, and one of our most important physicists and cosmologists. A lot more kids would be attracted to this field if more scientists engaged them directly.
No. A lot more kids would be engaged if we simply invested in STEM education at the k-12 level instead of sending money to ukraine
Wrong. We desperately need to send money to Ukraine, especially money that has already been spent years ago to produce hardware that would be scrapped in the very new future anyway. That costs very little although the notional cost can be high. It helps get new orders too. As far as investing in STEM education that is a no brainer.@@RobertMJohnson
Wrong. We desperately need to send money to Ukraine, especially money that has already been spent years ago to produce hardware that would be scrapped in the very new future anyway. That costs very little although the notional cost can be high. It helps get new orders too. As far as investing in STEM education that is a no brainer. supporting Ukraine now is extremely good value for money. If we fail we will have huge problems dealing with Putin in the not too distant future. Besides China is watching very closely and you do not want them to get the wrong idea about Taiwan.@@RobertMJohnson
@@rogerphelps9939 There are tow kinds of advocate in this word. One kind that advocates for life and one that advocates for death. Robert above would be an example of the former while you yourself are an example of the latter. I'm not making a 'right/wrong' judgement here but if the advocates for life are to have any chance at prevailing then sadly, they will have to become 'advocates for the death of those whom advocate for death' until only advocates for life exist. Not an easy needle to thread. :(
@@RobertMJohnson You can't fix the education system by throwing more money at it though. The problem is that teachers do not explain STEM subjects in an approachable fashion. Like, I'm not good at memorizing things, but if I can UNDERSTAND them at a fundamental level, I'll be able to solve any related problem with logical thinking. When I was still a student the only teacher of STEM subjects that came anywhere close to that, was the physics teacher. I was able to get As and Bs just fine there, but when it came to, say, mathematics (as a separate subject) I could barely pass to the next year, because the teacher would basically not explain shit, only provided a mathematical formula and had us do examples until we memorized the formula. It's nice and all, but the problem is that this kind of teaching, statistically, is easier for women to get than men. That much was also mirrored in the grades of the students in the class, with girls having proportionally higher grades in math than boys, whereas in physics it was the girls who struggled. And, to make it funnier, it was the class with math/phys/IT focus too.
Carl Sagan and David Attenborough are two of the best samples of science popularizers and throw in every science fiction writer. Yes, they are important simply because to attract regular people to real science.
You can trust 'scientists' in the same way you can trust anyone else......to say whatever benefits them.
The problem I have with this premise is that most new science requires foundational understanding. As a scientist, if I want to explain something new to someone, I first have to catch them up to a baseline. Then introduce the requisite new information. What science influencers do is based on a different goal. They don't want to explain an idea in a functional way. They want to explain that a new idea is out there and help people understand the importance of it by associating it with ideas that are already part of their foundational knowledge. Sometimes the goal of this is merely infotainment and sometimes it is to catch the attention of investors.
But most of the "science" these poster boys preach isn't new... For example, the big bang and evolution theories are literally over a century old.
If you invented a new way to manipulate a particular metal for practical use, you don’t have to have a bunch of foundational understanding beyond high school chemistry to understand the new invention.
Yes. But that isn't that exciting to most people.@@RobertMJohnson
@@RobertMJohnson I think you overvalue the efficacy of a high school education. For a majority of people, what they learned in high school is far overshadowed by the distorted view of reality they ""learn"" on KZhead or X.
I have never heard the term science popularizer before. But to answer your question in the way that you could not. Science is difficult to understand and they need People that can constantly update people of the latest discoveries of science and articulate way that it is easy for them to understand and digest.
Six months ago a KZhead science popularizer said we should remove the word “create“ from our vocabulary. My comment was, that as words are the tools of thought and communication. It is unwise to remove a useful tool arbitrarily. I have found since then, I can’t find this popularizer credible on the basis of this attitude.
Unfortunately, when you follow the "science" it always leads straight to the money.
And so is everything else.
Yo, but not all Science Popularizers are crap.
he is just experimentalist, cant find ass witout a script xe xe
Back some 20+ years ago there was talking that N.Tyson's work was done by others.
I've yet to see one that's not a phony. All that I've seen make a career out of pushing false "science" and demonizing real science. They've made science a religion which it was never meant to be. Theories constantly are disproven or fixed to have continuity of laws etc yet we are now taught to trust the contemporary experts and don't dare question their authority....which is about as non scientific and anti-advantageous to the progression of better science as could be. But again this is the major downfall of instilling politics power and monies to prove theories into scientific processes as we have done with medicine, climate, and even environmental stewardship ignoring real threats like soil and water toxicity while focusing on the so many fake power measures.
Examples?
@@KaoticReach1999 Eeeeh, yes, Brian aint crap, he's not dumb. Naic.
NDT has the intelligence of a rock , watch him speak on the jab and you will see that he is completely clueless. Sorry to any rocks that i might have offended with this comment 😂
One thing I can agree, science is not complicated. I do think science communicators are important, and scientists should also be better communicators.
Albert Einstein most famously said “If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.”
whenever you go on reddit and KZhead to learn about something like quantum physics, math, astrophysics the science popularizers are always talking about how hard it is to understand said subject and I'm just thinking "yeah can you explain instead of wasting my time showing off how smart you think you are for learning this so you feel better about the arm and leg you paid for to go to college while I use youtube for free to learn it"
I didnt pay an arm and a leg to g o to college and still got a good degree. You seem to not understand how college works if you think everyone goes to an NCAA school and pays out of state fees. Not the norm my guy.
Wow!! Clickbait central🤬🤬🤬🤬
Well, it's not just the communication, though that can be very hard, depending on the exact problem. The very foundation of some of our work can be incredibly complicated and detailed, such that it represents a challenge unto itself.
They want science to be a religion. Its the only way they can say there is not a creator. Evolution and the big bang ect.
Radar was discovered by the Germans before the Brits did. They just dubbed it. Some Poles broke the Enigma code and not Turing. He just dubbed it and created a machine doing it faster. So, is popularizing science the same thing as lying?
"He just...created a machine" - which laid the foundation for his contribution to computer science, which is the science he is famous for.
Agree. I am refering to propaganda posts on the internet claiming he cracked the code and saved England. The Poles saved England who never got credit for it.
The Poles only got so far.. Bletchley Park where Turing worked, perfected it. It was not a simple matter of dubbing it and creating a machine to speed things up. Far more to it than that.
The basic principle was the alphabetic order the Poles discovered and England did not possess the latest Enigma machine, so they did not even understand how it technically worked. The main difference was the Germans did it by hand (a much more time consuming principle), while Turing automated it. Based on the 1 and 0 switch principle allowing for endless next level decisions. Actually brought to him by Wittgenstein. Also a German mathematician. Later on England revealed in the press they had cracked the Enigma code after finding a document in a German sub they captured. Which was total BS and only meant for getting more budget for the Navy. Creating fake hero narratives. The science of it as a type of collaboration is very interesting.
Imagine if everyone had an interest in the science's in general as much as they're interested in sports, movie's, music, etc. Technological advancements would increase tenfold.
People already can't handle the technology we've got. You are describing a nightmare.
lol@@tinymetaltrees
There is a reason why we are not all scientists...but that's another story for another day :)
Are you sure? I mean someone will still have to do manual labor and wont have time to use any of that knowledge anyway.
Having an interest in science requires thinking skills, particularly the critical variety. That is not the case for sports, movies, music etc. They are more about feelings and there can be a range of opinions of roughly equal merit. Science is not so superficial.
People like Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson or even Bill Nye aren't 'bad' spokespersons for the Sciences. Majority rules, I've only-really seen them encourage more people to learn about the world and the universe around us. All of them actively encourage more Scientific Engineer career paths, for example. Also, I think what makes them good promoters after their 'active duty' has passed, is that they're actual doctors who have done the work in private and then also in public. So I don't see anything wrong with them getting paid for what they know, based on their expertise, and their experiences in their respective fields. Even when their understandings inevitably blends or bleeds over into some of the other Scientific disciplines. The PROBLEM however, is when we get those dreaded 'hired propagandists' in front of large audiences, who are essentially just Marketing some idea, product or narrative-driven buzzword. That's not "Science." --- We would do well to remember that there is a difference between those in the field who have done, or who are actively doing the work, experiments and exercises in the various Scientific fields...and the MARKETING of 'Science' in general. -//- The Marketing of Science... is-NOT "Science." Even though Marketing is an applied Science by itself. The way people use the word 'Science' is intellectually lazy; like randomly saying "Car" without distinguishing whether you're talking about a Chevrolet a Ford or a Dodge KIND of car...and then without further distinguishing whether they're talking about the type of Chevy -[CAMARO]-, a Ford -[MUSTANG]- or a Dodge -[CHARGER]- as an extension of the kind of car. - The study of ___ (fill in the blank). = Is a Science - Professionals in the field, doing the work. = Scientist - Marketing = applied Science - Some person getting paid by a company or government just to hype up some idea, product or buzzword = That ain't Science. // Now... that same person could-also-be a Scientist in whatever discipline...who has a job to simply perform in the capacity of the applied Science, Marketing...but again, that's just called Marketing. That's not called Science. In that case, that's a Scientist who is performing Marketing. And..if they're not even an actual Scientist, then that's just a Marketing person, a talking head, a salesperson or some kind of spokesperson. Let's just remember to keep it simple... Science is THE STUDY OF ____ (fill in the blank). -//- Science is not "clumping all the scientific fields together just to title it all ((Science))."
I would say that "Science Popularizers" are important and play a particular role. The problem is something you pointed out in this interview; most scientists are bad at communicating publicly. The problem is that we've lost people like Carl Sagan, and were given pale imitations like NDG and Kaku. To me, the people truly carrying the torch once held by Sagan are people like folks like yourself and your friend John Michael Godier. There are many more here on KZhead and even Rumble breaking down these discoveries, and more importantly, not hiding ideas simply due to a political leaning one way or the other.
My astronomy teacher put it succinctly. "I am scientist, I do work, I don't just stand around and make shit up like a philosopher." 🤣
A good scientist is a philosopher attempting to answer a question.
Speaking of which! I am glad you commented. Real question. Does this sound more like philosophy or science to you? "Illusion Belief Evidence Understanding" No seriously, I am curious as to what you think.
@@evo1ov3 Say more...I see four words but fail to know the context.
Your professor just parrots what peer reviewed papers say. He doesn't have to make it up, he just repeats madeup stuff.
Good job! That is the correct answer. You passed the test. That is Plato's "philosophy of science." 🍙 Ekisia Pistis 🔥 Dianoa Noesis 🌅 Back in school I always had this hard time. It's like why is it evertime I take a science class. I end up learning something about philosophy. But when I take a philosophy class I end up learning somethinv about science? For example I take a philosophy of logic class from philosophy of science teacher. And he insists on teaching us the difference between a Aristotle's 3part syllogism and modern skepticism, how the scientific method works by "denying the antecedent" through post hoc reasoning. Why that's necessary for science. So on and so forth. Anyways I end up learning this 4 part system of logic using if then statements. Which contrasts with the 3 part Modus Ponens Modus Tollens system. Then one day. Mid course. My teacher gets dead serious and has this ice cold look in his eyes. Gleaming really. Like he's about to show us something that he knows we cannot imcomensurablby conceive of at this point in our education. And passes out a paper on Plato's Divided Line from Republic VI 509. And for years that bothered me. I spent nights thinking about. Going through the logic. 123 or 1234? Drove me nuts. Then I started reading Plato..... OHHHHHHHH MYYYYY GOD 😳 My philosophy of science teacher? Didn't just teach us the scientific method. He taught us how to think like Aristotle using Plato's method of understanding. You can see it right there in Plato's Dialouges. Where Aristotle got the motivation to codifie logic. Where he got the logic to begin with. But most importantly of all. WHY Aristotle made the Sun orbit the Earth. And not the Earth orbiting the Sun. 🫣 It had nothing to do with who was right or wrong about empirical evidence... It had to do with what's called the "saving of appearances." It's really REALLY scary shit. Anyways that's my context. Socrates's death traumatized Plato so bad. It's unbelievable. Idk
They are to science as Albert Einstein is to … interpretive dance.
If morality is a choice and an obligation is not, what is a moral obligation?
Covid was the ultimate eye opener on which scientists you should disregard.
You need science popularizers because science is always under attack. You need people who are good communicators. Not all scientists are good communicators. When I was in college, I had good and bad professors. Some were leading experts in their fields, but had no desire to teach. They were forced to teach so many courses, but really only wanted to research. They had no desire to teach and weren’t good at it. I went to school to be an educator. I'm good at communicating. I'm not the top expert in any of my areas, but I communicate the work of others to the averagd person. That's my passion. All of us have different goals and desires in life.
The problem is when those scientists are comprised & just pushing the establishment agendas Tyson is the best example of this, he says things certifiably false.
"Science is always under attack." Science, qua science (as opposed to the scientism that is all the rage these days), is SUPPOSED to be always "under attack". That's what science IS. It is defined by FALSIFICATION not reinforcement...by DOUBT not belief. I want you to seriously question whether the "science" you are talking about, and the "attack" you are talking about really has anything to do with actual science. Once you have interrogated that question, I want you to then reconsider the necessity and even the moral character of what "popularizers of science" have done and are doing to the state of science as an institution and to the state of the society that depends upon that institution to proceed honestly and with scientific integrity free from political and financial influence.
@SolusVir lol step on a college campus and then speak. You know what, I'll clarify. I was intentionally vague in my OP, but of course, some ass-hat like you had to come around...I have a degree in History and Religious Studies. The 2nd half of my education was the history and philosophy of science, specifically biology. I focused on the evolution-creationism controversy. Of course I know science is about falsifiability. I took grad level biology courses. Falsifiablily is the line of demarcation between science and non-science. This is taught in Scientific reasoning 101. When I say science is under attack, I mean people, probably like you, push creationism as a valid scientific theory on par with evolution. What does creationism tell us about the change of life over time? Nothing. How do you falsify creationism? You can't. That's why it's not science. One of my biology professors has been running a decades long survey for his biology students and has found that over 30% of his students either 1. Didn't learn about evolution in high school and/or 2. Were taught creationism. I'll say it again. Creationism is not science, yet it is taught as legit science. Teaching pseudoscience is attacking science and it is happening every day all over the country. Now go back to talk about how aliens built the pyramids 😆
@@SolusVir I'm waiting for your response. Don't run.
@@kevinathans4191 You are the kind of atheist that old atheists like me find insufferable. But you are obviously very young and full of yourself. You'll grow out of that with age. For now though, your lack of wisdom shows in your leaping to conclusions about your interlocutor. I didn't bring up Creationism and it wasn't what I was getting at. The anti-Creationist position is low hanging fruit, something I was excited about a couple decades ago (long after I had, as you put it, stepped on a college campus). I won't go so far as to say that debate is boring (I still find it engaging, and I suspect I know more about it than you do), but It's hardly an attack on science. These days I'm more concerned about the younger generations and their misappropriation of the word "science" to refer to whatever the cause du jour is. They are no more scientific in their views than Creationists, particularly when they "trust the science" or "follow the science", which is religious language and the opposite of scientific. This is the real attack on science: replacing it in the psychology of the masses with SCIENTISM, a kind of "cargo cult" that views science and its high priests in lab coats as just another top-down oracle, a revelatory force that gives them another reason not to think for themselves. Of course, political control is the entire purpose behind this misappropriation of "science", and that is what "popularizers of science" are up to. And, THAT, my obstinate young friend, is what I was referring to.
Niel "fortune cookie science" DeGrass Tyson
I gave up on society... Their response to the covid plandemic was horrific and reaffirmed my darkest fears of the cowardice of man #Prayer ✌️♥️💯
It's simple. Teach children how to learn, and unbridle their curiosity. An informed and well educated and curious society is a dynamic society. It all starts with better education, including college, free to all.