See my abortion pictures /mangled baby bodies comment above. Someone might well claim that those pictures are simply the symbolic visible representation of abortion.
But the flaw in that claim is that it unfairly, inaccurately, represents abortion. And succeeds by creating visceral disgust instead of an understanding of the actual issues in play.
So, too, with the belching smokestacks. You’re right that the EPA has been effective in a wide range of pollution control, well beyond visible dirty smoke. But the photo works because viewers react viscerally, not in response to knowledge about the reversal of acid rain.
Politics is something I really don’t understand much of beyond the surface and when it gets too deep I just start following my logical train of thought…often times that doesn’t work.
When it comes to politics, especially arm chair politicians, logic usually has no part in the arguments. A friend of mine, very very outspoken and very very right posted something the other day. I should mention that he’s also very very smart, but when he gets really riled up when it comes to politics.
Anyways, the other day he posted something (a meme maybe?) about how if guns should only be in the hands of the police then we should all get rid of our fire extinguishers.
Yeah, that makes sense.
The guy is one of the top lawyers in the area that he lives in, but logic just falls apart when he’s trying to talk about politics.
I did like it when he slammed Obama for holding a coffee cup instead of saluting and when I posted a picture of Bush doing, literally, the same thing (holding a dog instead of saluting) he came back with “that’s not at all the same”. Yeah, buddy, it is the same. Honestly, I don’t care, but I just think it’s funny that for just about anything you can ‘blame Obama’ for, there’s a GOP pres that probably did the same thing. But point it out and you’re the asshole.
What error? As I pointed “Catholics do not shy away from calling the beginning of the universe the moment of creation”, indeed, a very ***old ***event according to scientists and Mainstream Catholics.
As I recall, the outrage factories geared up because Obama somewhat clumsily returned a salute while holding a cup. The Bush salute pictures are funnier just because small dogs are (usually) funny.
In either event, when met with complainers who obviously care little if their complaints make sense or not, responding with anything stronger than mockery is wasted effort.
You just described Old Earth Creationism–specifically evolutionary creationism, aka theistic evolution. If you believe God created the universe, but agree that the Earth is not 6000 years old, you are an Old Earth Creationist.
What you described is exactly my belief, and I call myself an Old Earth Creationist.
By the standards of the article, which includes Bill Nye, he counts, and I would expect him at least fair game. And as a person who uses science to do his job, I’d hope he’d be a little less disingenuous.
Which was first discovered/theorized by a priest. Who as far as I know, only couched his theory in scientific terms.
The distinction is that TE doesn’t require a meddling tinkerer of a god, whereas most OEC theories allow for microevolution, but don’t think that single cell organisms evolved into multicellular evolved into aquatic life evolved into land animals evolved into primates evolved into humans. And a OEC biology class would talk about God and creation, whereas a class in a school that adheres to TE probably wouldn’t even mention God unless it is relevant to the discussion of Scopes and things like that.
On preview, how odd, Wikipedia has completely changed their terminology and it looks like your post is based on that and not a fundamental misunderstanding. But to be clear, no matter what Wikipedia decides to go with, TE is Darwininan in nature whereas the beliefs of many evangelical Christians and groups like Old Earth Ministries (formerly Answers in Creation but changed to avoid association with YEC Answers in Genesis) require divine intervention.
And when you stop and think about it, having a BS in mechanical engineering is probably MORE than enough formal scientific education to accomplish it in spades, much less a PhD in astrophysics from Columbia.
Most of what they do is to explain scientific procedure and ways of thinking to people who probably had their science classes taught by a football coach or other unqualified person and/or slept through them. Likely they were underfunded as well.
So all they really have to do is be able to explain the scientific method, explain why it’s important, be able to explain BASIC scientific concepts like Newton’s 3rd Law, and how it affects things.
Beyond that, it’s a matter of being telegenic/photogenic, being a halfway decent writer, and being able to come up with clever visual aids and what-not.
Being a serious scientist isn’t really necessary. Look at Mythbusters; those guys aren’t scientists at all, but they do much of the same sorts of things as NdGT and Nye.
Hell, I have a computer science BS, a MBA, and a MS in Information Technology, and I could probably be an effective science educator. Certainly nothing they write or go on TV about is beyond my scientific education so far.
The title of this thread immediately took me to William Shockley, a brilliant physicist, co-inventor of the transistor and Silicon Valley. However, when he stepped outside the world of physics, I would argue for stupidity.
I originally wanted to point at this, but got distracted, well said.
And also to mention that Bill Nye has, in more than on occasion, clarified that he is not a scientist.
So, Milo is just using the old tactic of pseudo scientists that try to make their opponents sound mischievous when the pseudo scientist is the one who is.
People who are obsessed with the qualifications/degrees of the scientists with whom they identify tend not to care about the lack of evidence backing those scientists’ claims.
They are also apt to believe that the vast weight of countervailing opinion among scientists represents “bias”, "politics or shilling for corporate interests.
In addition, they have trouble recognizing that being a scientist means less when one is making claims in a field in which one lacks training and expertise.
I’m not that familiar with Tyson or Nye. If in fact it’s possible to demolish their arguments using facts and they don’t admit error, then attacking them as stupid might have merit. If on the other hand they promote sound science, then I don’t care if they have fewer or less impressive degrees than someone promoting woo, who might be very bright but believes in stupid things.*
*examples include Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in immunology (and antivaxer), Don Huber (PhD in plant pathology and anti-GMOer), Peter Duesberg (PhD molecular biologist and AIDS denier), various climate change deniers etc. etc.
Isaac Newton spent a great deal of his time unlocking the secrets of the universe with Alchemy and the Philospoher’s Stone, which even for the time was in woo territory.
It is human although unfortunate for posters (and scientists, especially those who espouse pseudoscience) to have difficulty admitting error.
Another unfortunate tendency posterwise is to keep making the same errors over and over again (like attributing beliefs to one’s opponents which they don’t hold) while expecting (and actually receiving) praise for acknowledging said errors.
_-_Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}