Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
TOF once wrote an article entitled "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown and Down 'n Dirty Mud-Wrassle" which described the century-l...
-
Hello family, friends and fans of Michael F. Flynn. It is with sorrow and regret that I inform you that my father passed away yesterday,... -
1. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown 2. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown: Down for the Count 3. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown: The Great Gali...
I'm sure I'm way oversimplifying here, but when I looked at your picture, I found myself thinking, the Scholastics were in the Bohr quadrant, while the early moderns were in the Edison quadrant.
ReplyDeleteAnd Voltaire, who liked to play with a chemistry lab but never did any work of value, was definitely in the Nye quadrant.
DeleteWell, no scientific work of any value. Candide is very funny and fun to read, though, so I wouldn't say absolutely no work of value.
DeleteI meant he did no work of value with his chemistry lab, of course.
DeleteHa! Although if Nye is anywhere to be found on a science chart, it should only be as a cautionary tale.
ReplyDeleteCan you even really call what Edison did research? It was more like "meticulous trial and error". As Tesla said of him, "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd say that's research. Though admittedly, if true, very inefficient research.
DeleteI'm not sure Nye is worthy of a whole quadrant. Maybe just the origin (0,0). . .
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the disdain for Bill Nye. He's probably the most popular voice for science -especially climate science - right now, taking on climate deniers and demonstrating the fatal flaws in their arguments. All of this under an administration that is waging a *secular* war on science - something people like Dawkins and Harris said was impossible.
ReplyDelete‘Climate deniers’. That’s your trouble right there. In your mind, anyone who is not passionately convinced that humans are solely and exclusively responsible for an imminent catastrophic change in global temperatures, and that the overbearing and draconic action of the state is the sole possible method of averting the catastrophe, is a ‘denier’ who knows no science and wants to know none.
DeleteNye, like you, is a religious cultist; only because his religion does not contain a god, he and you can go on pretending that you’re advocating good science instead of bad religion.
@Tom Simon: To be fair, Anonymous did say that the Trump administration was mounting a secular attack on science, which "people like Dawkins and Harris" denied the possibility of.
Delete@Anonymous: Part of the antipathy to Nye is that he is actually included in "people like Dawkins and Harris". Another part is that climate is not remotely as cut-and-dry as political advocacy would like it to be. And a third part is that Nye abused the authority he acquired in his audience's childhood to help propagate nonsense like that "gender" is a spectrum—as a scientific idea, not a cultural one. ("Gender" as a set of social norms is, indeed, not exactly binary. But the biology in question is; the intersex conditions, so frequently cited to the contrary, don't change that. "Some aspects of A as well as B" is not actually "C".)
Bill Nye, like the Left more generally, is of the school of 'If-You-Disagree-With-Me-You're-Wicked-or-Stupid-or-Both'. The whole point of the 'Climate Denier' epithet (and it's cousins, 'Science-Denier' and 'Anti-Science') is to shut down discussion/debate on legitimate scientific grounds, in order to advance a political/ideological agenda.
ReplyDeleteWow, what perfect aim, right to the heart of the matter!
DeleteChristi pax.