It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Byrd
No, but you'd better have the right equipment and the right training and the right skills to perform on a team of professional athletes.
If you're walking around and talking as though you're a New York published author when you haven't written a poem or read many books since high school, then no publisher is going to pay attention to your ideas of what literature is and what direction it should take.
Scientists examine it all the time, particularly through a type of research called "metastudies."
Theories get knocked about all the time, and the ones who can overturn a great hypothesis with a better one are celebrated (the asteroid from space that marked the end of the time of dinosaurs is one such (more recently they found that the non-avian dinosaurs died before the comet hit.)
Advances like Lasik (which I had 10 years ago) and shoulder surgery (which my husband will have this year) along with their corollary technical advances mean I see better than my grandparents and my husband will not be crippled by arthritis in a few years.
That's science.
And scientists get tired of listening to people who've "read a few websites and are pondering a Great Problem" pontificate.
Before you dismiss Tyson
originally posted by: mirthfull
originally posted by: Byrd
No, but you'd better have the right equipment and the right training and the right skills to perform on a team of professional athletes.
Perform what? I was talking about water cooler chat about the game. Isn't that what we're doing here, talking about the professional, public performance of their profession.
If you're walking around and talking as though you're a New York published author when you haven't written a poem or read many books since high school, then no publisher is going to pay attention to your ideas of what literature is and what direction it should take.
I think you'll find focus groups are full of such people, and publishers take them seriously enough.
Scientists examine it all the time, particularly through a type of research called "metastudies."
Metastudies don't examine the verasity of research, they assume the science is of good quality and consolidate the information and try to draw a conclusion based on the evidence as it appears.
Theories get knocked about all the time, and the ones who can overturn a great hypothesis with a better one are celebrated (the asteroid from space that marked the end of the time of dinosaurs is one such (more recently they found that the non-avian dinosaurs died before the comet hit.)
That's not the impression I've gotten, many argue that the great revisions in science required the retirement of an entrenched generation of academics.
Advances like Lasik (which I had 10 years ago) and shoulder surgery (which my husband will have this year) along with their corollary technical advances mean I see better than my grandparents and my husband will not be crippled by arthritis in a few years.
That's science.
Technically that's medicine and engineering but, in any case, I didn't say science was pointless, I meant to suggest it was rather more fallible than Dr Tyson suggests.
And scientists get tired of listening to people who've "read a few websites and are pondering a Great Problem" pontificate.
Scientists seem as eager to pontificate beyond they're expertise as the rest of us. Everyone has an opinion, the trick is discerning who's opinion is worth considering deeply. If they're sick of hearing people pontificate, be smart enough to stop listening.
Before you dismiss Tyson
I didn't dismiss him, he's an entire person, I just dismissed one idea attributed to him, that science is true even if you don't believe it. It's fundamentally unscientific, the assumption is supposed to be that everything we know is probably wrong. Just because crazy religious people push discourse toward fundamentalism isn't a good basis for the rest of us to jump into that particular quagmire. Where to we go from the unquestioned authority of the authoritative.
Physics is stuck, really, really stuck, he's overselling.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Do us all a favor and get an actual degree in science before criticizing it and consequently embarrassing yourself.
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Do us all a favor and get an actual degree in science before criticizing it and consequently embarrassing yourself.
Firstly, how do you even know what degrees I may or may not have? Secondly, since when does critiquing a statement through a philosophical approach even require a degree? Thirdly, how have I embarrassed myself? By daring to challenge a statement made by a scientist? Or does it make you feel better to project your own insecurities onto others?
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Do us all a favor and get an actual degree in science before criticizing it and consequently embarrassing yourself.
Firstly, how do you even know what degrees I may or may not have? Secondly, since when does critiquing a statement through a philosophical approach even require a degree? Thirdly, how have I embarrassed myself? By daring to challenge a statement made by a scientist? Or does it make you feel better to project your own insecurities onto others?