Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and director of the Natural History Museum’s Hayden Planetarium in New York City. He is also the host of Fox Networks’ new science series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. Last Sunday, Tyson appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources program and spoke with Brian Stelter. During the program, Tyson talked about “the hypocrisy of people dismissing scientific theory while simultaneously embracing the fruits of scientific discovery ‘that we so take for granted today.’”
Tyson said that our civilization “is built on the innovation of scientists and technologists and engineers who have shaped everything that we so take for granted today. So some of the science deniers or science haters, these are people who are telling that to you while they are on their mobile phone. They are saying, ‘I don’t like science. Oh, GPS just told us to go left. So it’s time for people to sit back and reassess what role science has actually played in our lives. And learn how to embrace that going forward, because without it, we will just regress back into the caves.”
Stelter asked Tyson if he felt that the news media should feel a responsibility to portray science correctly—especially with regard to controversial issues such as climate change. Tyson said he thought the news media was wrong to give equal time to the “flat-earthers.” He thinks the media “should stop trying to ‘balance’ the debate on scientific issues by hosting people who deny science.”
Tyson said, “The media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but it doesn’t really apply in science. The principle was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view. And then you can be viewed as balanced.” He continued, “You don’t talk about the spherical Earth with NASA, and then say let’s give equal time to the flat Earthers. Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick.”
Tyson added, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it. Alright? I guess you can decide whether or not to believe in it, but that doesn’t change the reality of an emergent scientific truth.”
The great American science divide (CNN)
Recently, Tyson spoke about the new version of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Tyson said that science and religion should not be painted as being “diametrically opposed to each other.” He said there were many scientists who believe in God. He added, “The issue there is not religion versus non-religion or religion versus science, the issue there is ideas that are different versus dogma.”
Tyson explained, “If you start using your scripture, your religious text as a source of your science, that’s where you run into problems, and there is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying ‘I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet because this gave me insight.’” He continued, “Enlightened religious people know this, and don’t try to use the Bible as a textbook.”
Chris Mooney of Mother Jones said that Tyson has emphasized that the stance of the science series Cosmos is anti-dogma—not anti-religion. Tyson was quoted as saying, “Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, and that what you call the truth is unassailable, you’ve got doctrine, you’ve got dogma on your hands. And so Cosmos is…an offering of science, and a reminder that dogma does not advance science; it actually regresses it.”
Katie Valentine of ThinkProgress noted that Tyson had spoken previously “about the need for the public to accept scientific facts rather than the talking points of politicians.” According to Valentine, the astrophysicist said in 2011 that climate change deniers should “be mature enough to recognize something can be true even if you don’t like the consequences of it. That’s what it means to be a mature adult.” Valentine also reported that while appearing on CNN in February, Tyson said that “he hopes America doesn’t wait until climate change has drastically changed the Earth’s landscape to realize that our policies haven’t done enough to prepare us.”
Tyson said that he doesn’t know what to say “when politicians start analyzing the science. “Are we going to wait until the coastlines get redrawn as the glaciers melt off of Antarctica and Greenland?”
Good question, Mr. Tyson, good question.
SOURCES
Neil deGrasse Tyson tells CNN: Stop giving ‘equal time to the flat Earthers’ (Raw Story)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson To Science Deniers: ‘Science Is Not There For You To Cherry Pick’ (ThinkProgress)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ‘Enlightened Religious People Don’t Use The Bible As A Textbook’ (Huffington Post)
Paul: I haven’t had a chance to read those articles you posted regarding the UCS and so forth, but I will; they look interesting. They’re lengthy, so I need find some time to get to them. When I do, I’ll most likely post a response on this weeks post regarding the importance of science literature.
Suffice to say, that the Uncaused Cause, whatever that may be, isn’t given to answering any questions.
If you do not know what the Uncaused Cause is, how do you know it won’t answer any questions?
What exactly is your issue with evolution?
And how do you explain the origin of man, and the diversity of life on earth.
I am relying on the Uncaused Cause to answer all those questions.
David: ” What I want is honest and meaningful acknowledgement that correlation analysis between atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise does not prove man has caused global warming.”
This is perhaps the first honest statement you’ve ever made in this forum and it is the very definition of confirmation bias.
Lewis Black on Creationism
Byron,
I was quite amused when I read that piece. I enjoy humor–and hyperbole–in writing when used with a deft hand. Don’t read it literally…as some do the Bible.
Elaine:
“while we greenhouse gas oursleves to the boiling point.”
Your author has the exact same mentality as the people he is speaking about.
Elaine – please get around the Uncaused Cause.
arent
Watch out, “Cosmos”! The Holy Inquisition is not happy with you
The religious right attacks Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “agitprop for scientific materialism”
Andrew Leonard
3/11/14
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/11/watch_out_cosmos_the_holy_inquisition_is_not_happy_with_you/
If you are the kind of Christian liable to get upset when scientists deploy their annoying facts to prove crazy stuff like their “theories” that the Earth is older than 6,000 years or that the universe began with a Big Bang, then the resurrection of “Cosmos” must be extremely irritating. First, those damned progressives stopped allowing the Church to burn heretics at the stake; now even Fox is broadcasting “science” documentaries. Truly, to quote the great Erick Erickson, “we do live in a fallen, depraved world destined for the fire.”
Some of the poor souls oppressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson’s return to the promised land first pioneered by Carl Sagan took to Twitter with their predictable grumblings. My favorite: “Dear #cosmos, the origin of the universe actually is not mysterious. God had Moses write about it in the #Bible. You should read it sometime.”
So THERE!
But the folks at Evolution News and Views chose a more sophisticated approach, preferring instead to engage in a convoluted argument about Tyson’s decision to focus part of the first episode on the martyred Giordano Bruno. (Hat tip: Steve Silberman).
(Evolution News and Views, incidentally, is published by The Discovery Institute, a vehicle that seems primarily — although perhaps not so intelligently — designed to help religious right-wing millionaires fund attacks on the theory of evolution.)
The revisionist “Cosmos” critique concerning Bruno goes like this: He wasn’t even really a scientist, and he was burned to death because of his theological heresies and not his belief in Copernican theory, (SO HE DESERVED IT!) and the main reason he showed up on “Cosmos” at all was because he was “the only one with even a passing association with a scientific controversy to be burned at the stake during this period of history.”
Maybe it’s just me, but reading between the lines of this piece I detected what seemed to be a tinge of regret that unbelievers can no longer be punished for straying from the Gospel with purging fire. Neil Tyson — watch your back!
The best part: “Cosmos” is labeled “a glossy multi-million-dollar piece of agitprop for scientific materialism” as if that’s a bad thing. I mean, I understand why religious zealots might think it’s cool to slander a science documentary in language suggesting it’s all a Communist plot. (The Big Bang — brought to you by Stalin and the good ole boys at the KGB.) But if there is one thing that the United States sorely needs right now, it’s more effective propaganda in support of facts and the scientific method.
And, of course, it is no accident that Giordano Bruno appeared in the first episode of “Cosmos.” Because whether or not Bruno himself was a scientist, there’s not a whole lot, besides their relative lack of access to killer barbeque tools, that differentiates the current crop of intelligent design advocates and Texas textbook revisionists and inheritors of the Moral Majority mantle from the shame and terror of the Holy Inquisition.
And all we need to do to see our world descend into a real pit of hellfire is to continue to let the nonsense propagated by The Discovery Institute stand uncontested, while we greenhouse gas ourselves to the boiling point. Kudos to “Cosmos” for calling bullshit.
Elaine – I am a big fan of satire, but not bad writing. Leonard is a working journalist for an admitted liberal journal. Tyson speaks to his prejudices so he is willing to defend him. His thinking and Tyson’s are the same. An attack on Tyson is an attack on him. Differently than Tyson, he has the platform of Salon to pontificate from. To simplify it, Leonard is trying to destroy the messenger in order to destroy the message.
I can remember when the left was against the military-industrial complex. Now, Leonard is supporting it. My, how time has changed things.
DavidM:
Some science is settled. Those tentative conclusions can be validated. Isnt Galileo’s experiments on falling objects an example of induction and validation?
Byron wrote: “Some science is settled. Those tentative conclusions can be validated. Isnt Galileo’s experiments on falling objects an example of induction and validation?”
Not really. His experiment is actually an illustration of deductive inference, not inductive inference. Aristotle had theorized that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. The actual method of measuring balls of different masses being dropped from the Tower of Pisa would be focusing upon detail, and hence deductive. Such led to a falsification of the Aristotelian theory.
Subsequently, a more broad theory of gravitational acceleration developed which account for a wide variety of other influences, ranging from air resistance, to the effect of altitude, the effect of the rotation of the earth, and latitude (gravity being less at the equator than at the poles). A theory is basically a model that would then apply these observations universally. This is where inductive inference takes place. The only way to prove inductive inference is to make every single measurement possible, which is not really possible. Therefore, we frame our theory as tentative, subject to being falsified. We expect the theory to account for all observations, but we hold it as tentative because not every observation has been done. When sufficient experimentation and measurements take place that a great deal of confidence is placed in the theory, we stop calling it a theory and we call it a law of nature. Nevertheless, even then, it still is considered tentative. As a glaring caveat is Newton’s law of gravity. Who could have guessed that Newton’s law of gravity would become supplanted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity? Yet, when some observations at the atomic level did not match predictions based upon Newton’s law, and a bold prediction was made by Einstein concerning the effect of gravity upon light, that’s exactly what happened.
The general theory of evolution as a grand explanation for the origin of species is not even close to being a law. It is not really even a testable theory in science. It is a research paradigm. Scholars generally do not question evolution or attempt to test its predictions, but rather they simply use it as an intellectual framework for discussion and giving meaning to studies. Data that does not conform to the paradigm often is ignored, discarded, or explained away.
Pretty succinct response Elaine.
Answers for Creationists
By Phil Plait
2/6/14
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html
Excerpt:
After writing yesterday about the now-famous/infamous debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, I don’t want to make this blog all creationism all the time, but indulge me this one more time, if you will. On BuzzFeed, there is a clever listicle that is a collection of 22 photos showing creationists holding up questions they have for people who “believe” in evolution.
These questions are fairly typically asked when evolution is questioned by creationists. Some are philosophical, and fun to think about, while others show a profound misunderstanding of how science works, and specifically what evolution is. I have found that most creationists who attack evolution have been taught about it by other creationists, so they really don’t understand what it is or how it works, instead they have a straw-man idea of it.
Because of this, it’s worth exploring and answering the questions presented. Some could be simply answered yes or no, but I’m all about going a bit deeper. With 22 questions I won’t go too deep, but if you have these questions yourself, or have been asked them, I hope this helps.
I’ll repeat the question below, and give my answers.
1) “Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?”
I’m not Bill, but I’d say yes, he is. More than just giving them facts to memorize, he is showing them how science works. Not only that, his clear love and enthusiasm for science is infectious, and that to me is his greatest gift.
2) “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?”
No. In fact, if there is a Judeo-Christian god, that would have fascinating implications for much of what we scientists study, and would be a rich vein to mine. Perhaps a more pertinent question is, “Are you scared there might not be a Divine Creator?” There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.
3) “Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings … Adam created as an adult ….”
It might be internally consistent, even logical, but a bit of a stretch. After all, we can posit that God created the Universe last Thursday, looking exactly as it is, with all evidence pointing to it being old and your memories implanted such that you think you’re older than a mere few days. Consistent, sure, but plausible? Not really.
4) “Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?”
No. The creationist argument assumes the Earth is a closed system, such that energy cannot escape or enter. But the Sun is the main source of energy for the Earth. This allows more order to be created, and for entropy to be locally lowered in some cases.
5) “How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?”
Angular momentum. OK, kidding aside, if you mean the beauty of a sunset, well, we have evolved to appreciate colors, shapes, and metaphors. And in my opinion understanding the science behind events like sunsets adds to their beauty.
Incidentally, some creationists are geocentrists.
6) “If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?”
See No. 4. Also, as far as the Big Bang goes, we don’t know how or why the Universe came into being (though there are some interesting ideas). But “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer in science. It leads to asking more questions, which leads to more exploration, which leads to more understanding. Just being given an answer is like using the answer key to fill in a crossword puzzle. It’s no fun.
dm2 . . .
Of course, your voluminous excursions make sense to all that don’t actually read them, and are ignorant to your history of trumpeting your own unique blend of self-serving logic.
Gather the fools amongst you while you can, dm2; you will need them.
gbk wrote: “dm2 . . . Of course, your voluminous excursions make sense to all that don’t actually read them, and are ignorant to your history of trumpeting your own unique blend of self-serving logic. Gather the fools amongst you while you can, dm2; you will need them.”
As always gbk, your worthless comments show your distain for you fellow human beings under the pretense of intelligence; that of being a child.
Why don’t you and RTClueless go write your vile crap on twitter.
gbk – did you not get the memo on civility?
dm2,
“lol. You are too smart for me, gbk. I have no idea what you are trying to say.”
So we agree; as your voluminous recursions leave me laughing.
Elaine, maybe they can get their own gig on CBN.
Creationists Complain Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos’ Isn’t Giving Them Airtime
Catherine Thompson
March 21, 2014
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/creationists-neil-degrasse-tyson-cosmos-unbalanced
Creationists are accusing astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s reboot of “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” of being scientifically unbalanced because it doesn’t represent their beliefs.
Right Wing Watch posted audio of Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum speaking Thursday on “The Janet Mefford Show,” in which he blasted deGrasse Tyson for ignoring the creationist point of view.
“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all,” Faulkner told host Janet Mefford.
“But when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution, it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there,” Mefford said. “You know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”
Faulkner said that in the first episode of “Cosmos” deGrasse Tyson talked about all views being up for discussion in the field of science, but said he wasn’t following through on that standard.
“I thought to myself no, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion it would seem,” Faulkner said.
As Mother Jones reported, it’s not just the explanation of evolution on “Cosmos” that angers the creationist crowd: DeGrasse Tyson was also critiqued for covering global warming and the big bang theory.
And an Oklahoma Fox affiliate raised eyebrows last week when it apologized for cutting fifteen seconds from the “Cosmos” premiere, which contained the episode’s only reference to evolution, and blamed it on an “operator error.” The mishap came just after an anti-science bill that would make it easier for teachers to critique established scientific theories like evolution passed the Oklahoma House.
Elaine and annie – Tyson did say it was all on the table for discussion. He opened the door, they are just trying to walk in.
Paul, Lol!
Paul, Just when you think it’s over, maybe a day or 2 later, there will be another comment. Or, she’ll just keep commenting until you say to yourself, WTF??
nick – I am oppositionally defiant. I have to have the last word. It will never end. 🙂
Paul,
It wasn’t a Herculean effort. Had I gone through the entire spam filter, it would have been.