Science is the key to our future Bill Nye

Views: 49601

Albums: Science

Comment by IEatDinosaurMeat on April 18, 2011 at 1:25am

Rejecting evolution is rejecting science. - Isn't it just as easy to reject this statement by saying "nope"? Evolution is a part of the whole, you can deny part without denying the whole. Its a case where all robins are birds but not all birds are robins, evolution is part of science but not the whole.

Evolution is a fact and is not only demonstrated through fossil finds but by the DNA markers of A-T-G-C related throughout the animal kingdom. It is amazing how closely the DNA markets for chimpanzees and bonobos are to modern humans. The DNA markers in itself has provided indisputable evidence of evolution. - Okay, but this doesn't help the argument that not teaching Evolution is holding science back. It might hold evolution back, but how is it holding everything else back? That would be similar to saying "if you don't teach stoicism you'll hold philosophy back" stoicism is a part of the whole. The argument relies heavily on evolution being a significant cornerstone for the advancement of all sciences, where according to other world views its more like an extra toe, cut it off and you'll be fine.

 

My background is in philosophy, so what I'm mostly interested in is critical thinking and logic. I'm not satisfied with the claims being made in this instant, so I'm trying to look deeper into them and see if either I'm misunderstanding it, or it really is not a good argument. I don't know if he was trying to make a logical statement or not, but as it stands I don't like it.

Comment by IEatDinosaurMeat on April 18, 2011 at 1:40am
And after the videos... What in particular are you saying is irrational about anything Nye said?
Comment by Sassan K. on April 18, 2011 at 6:11am
I don't care much about philosophical arguments. Philosophy is great; but philosophy has been mostly replaced with science and evidence. For the video: I just think he talked with an arrogance and didn't demonstrate himself as an A-class scientist. He is no Dr. Michio Kaku or any of the other great scientists. He was a scientist for kids and that's pretty much it. He is not a heavy weight intellectual. On top of that, I have to search and find another clip I had seen from him a couple of years ago in which he was defending the belief in a god with a similar arrogant attitude as you had just seen. Saying this, based on new video I have seen and provided by Stephanie, he seems to have adjusted his attitude quite a bit and is not so unpleasant to hear from now, but he is still far from an A-class scientist.
Comment by Sassan K. on April 18, 2011 at 2:30pm
Steph, I just think he is arrogant and speaks on such matters without knowing the particular cases (as for these videos). I WILL still find the videos about religion in which he spoke that I keep mentioning. Give me 1 more day~!! I couldn't find it briefly looking on youtube so I might have to do some extensive search engines search (I'm a great searcher) so hopefully I will find it ASAP. Again, it is just him speaking on issues without knowing any detail of the particular cases etc. he spoke of with such convincing manner. It was a matter of arrogance and naivety. First research the matter, then speak. Again, I may have spoken too soon as his recent videos should a much diff. demeanor than he has had before but give me another day and I will either come through or resort in failure on this issue...but I may have jumped the gun too much on "emotion" but I still don't like Bill Nye as an intellectual scientist. Listening to him it seems like he is speaking to kids still when we are not kids anymore..
Comment by IEatDinosaurMeat on April 18, 2011 at 7:45pm

I don't care much about philosophical arguments. - Yeah, okay but I'm saying that reason and logic are something of a necessity when defending an argument. There is nothing more irritating than someone agreeing with my points while making horrible, fallacious arguments. Philosophy has been the father of most of the sciences. Before it's a science, there was a philosophy about it. I don't think it's replacing as much as confirming what a philosopher already theorized.

That being said, you never really gave me much of an answer to my question. Basically, I'm telling you to fix your logic, cause right now what you've done is said "Rejecting evolution is rejecting science" which is a conclusion without a premise, and cannot stand on it's own. After that you simply provided evidence for evolution. You aren't trying to convince me that evolution is true, you're trying to convince me that by denying evolution as a science, all other sciences suffer. This isn't only philosophy, this is logic, reason and rationality.

Arrogance on an unstudied subject doesn't mean he's irrational. His argument was airtight throughout, save for the false dichotomy/straw man thing. But what I saw was him saying "Okay, you saw something you can't explain, that doesn't make it extra terrestrial, it just makes it something you can't explain." Which is 100% true. If my background in philosophy taught me anything it's to make a rational argument. Not only that, but the guy could barely get a word in. He was getting interrupted on all sides by the other guys constantly. Saying he's irrational because he's not qualified and is arrogant is ad hominem.

Take a look at this http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ if you haven't already.

I'm not trying to be condescending or come off as imagining myself in some way your teacher or whatever I am developing my own skills here, and trying to keep logical people such as yourself logical and on their toes. 

Comment by Sassan K. on April 19, 2011 at 12:00am
I agree, on this topic I was naive and jumped the gun and based my comments and arbitrary viewpoints based on two programs I saw Bill Nye on in the last couple of years. Absolutely, on this topic I was naive and jumped the gun. I can simply add that to be true. What can I say?? We are emotional beings and I allowed my emotions to get the best of me; saying this, he is a bit arrogant and I still don't consider him an A-class scientist but still, I did jump the gun and sounded pretty redundant and ignorant on this thread. Still, I will try to find that video in which he was discussing religion on some CNN program a couple or few years back....but regardless, I was naive on this thread. It kind of bothers me I was naive on this thread as this was not even an important issue for me and actually I was not that informed on the topic...but it takes away from other topics I am extremely informed on, in particular with Islamic fundamentalism and the threat we face as a species if we let it go unchecked. But yes....not good showing by me!
Comment by Sassan K. on April 19, 2011 at 12:05am

And TSmith: to be honest, I haven't taken a single philosophy class. I study psychology/neuroscience, not philosophy. Like I said, philosophy is great and like you said, before science there was philosophy. But again, I will reaffirm what I believe: philosophy is mostly outdated and doesn't have much usefulness in today's world when we have the scientific method and the demand for empirical evidence away from philosophical arguments and rules.

I will stand by my statement (whether it violates philosophy rules or not since I have not studied philosophy) that rejecting evolution is rejecting science due to the reason that the evidence is so overwhelming (fossil finds in addition to the DNA markers) and to reject evolution is strictly on the basis of religious belief and not rationality, logic, and evidence.

Comment by IEatDinosaurMeat on April 19, 2011 at 2:21am

But what I'm saying is the statement (rejecting evolution is rejecting science) simply doesn't stand if a rational, logical person is given such an argument.

Now, saying by rejecting evolution you are rejecting a science, that would stand, but I'm not convinced that is what is being said. In fact, it seems more like the equivocal argument

If evolution is a science and if you reject evolution, then you reject science

Evolution is a science and you reject it

You reject science.

 

The definition of science changed in this argument from inferring a part (a science) to the whole (science). How does rejecting evolution hold back neuroscience? You need more than evidence for evolution to prove the correlation. Now, if that isn't what is being said please enlighten me, but this is how I read it.

Comment by IEatDinosaurMeat on April 19, 2011 at 3:31am
"philosophy is mostly outdated and doesn't have much usefulness in today's world when we have the scientific method and the demand for empirical evidence away from philosophical arguments and rules." - A philosophical argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Comment by Sassan K. on April 21, 2011 at 11:26pm

I personally want to apologize for jumping the gun. I don't know why I felt such a disdain for him on an emotional level. That was weird...I know that I felt a disdain for him based on that Larry King interview in the way he was dismissing the claims without knowing the particular details of the cases and just dismissing them as "loony" when the cases made were pretty reputable and convincing cases with high ranking former members of the armed forces; and the way he dismissed them irked me. In addition, I know I had seen him somewhere a couple of years back (I think it was CNN) I forgot which show in which I had watched it live and he was defending the concept of how religion and science don't contradict and how religion should in a way (I'm paraphrasing since I have not been able to locate the exact video) embraced along with science. But saying this, I WAS TOTALLY WRONG AND IGNORANT ON THIS TOPIC and I apologize and if Bill Nye was here would apologize to him too.

 

I went online and did some searches and found the way he has defended science, evolution, and the like against religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists on their message boards don't like him at all. Some did say that at first they thought he was a "good believer" but gave an example in where he went and spoke in Texas and said that "the moon doesn't produce light" and it comes from the sun and I guess this violates the bible (???) and religious folks got mad and stormed out during his speech...so based on my updated research on him I respect the guy and again apologize for making rush-to-judgement remarks which is usually not like me...and I was ignorant of the topic instead of properly doing research rather than basing my judgements and false perceived notions of who he was..

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service