Sam Harris sits down radical Islamic apologist Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Kafir-kun said:
You explained it yourself, the Saudi army itself doesn't use suicide bombing but rather their proxies do. Also their army sucks balls because if it was any good it would probably overthrow the royal family.
Click to expand...

It does get pretty gray when you add a couple of layers of separation, which I guess is the whole point of proxy to begin with.
 
Both of them are smug tryhards who pretend to be experts in shit they aren't experts in
 
tehJameson said:
It's hilarious how much the "right" hate scientists.

God isn't real, global warming is, you goofs.
Click to expand...

"""Scientists"""

Harris got his education in neurology and then doesn't do anything in that field, just talks about politics and religion all the time
 
tehJameson said:
Lol, at he's a leftist first. He's a scientist, and righties can't understand his big words so they denounce him completely.

*disclaimer* I'm neither right nor left so don't associate me with either dumb group.
Click to expand...

1474290456842.jpg
 
Pwent said:
"""Scientists"""

Harris got his education in neurology and then doesn't do anything in that field, just talks about politics and religion all the time
Click to expand...

I give Harris some benefit of the doubt here. He probably realized that any impact that he could have made within the scientific world, was likely going to be minimal compared to him acting as a spokesperson for science. There are many bright individuals around, doing legitimate scientific work, but few of them are articulate and even fewer are willing to waste the time of their day on religion or politics.

Yet, if scientists completely ignore the world around them, as they often tend to do, the narrative may be hi-jacked by people who do not really give a shit about their scientific work, and have no interest in arguing in its behalf. Harris is a guy who realized that there was essentialy an empty slot that he could fill, as someone who is a good enough talker and has some sort of a scientific background to legitimize him in the eyes of the public.

It's easy to ridicule him, I've certainly taken a few jabs at him myself, but it's not like there are a bunch of genius-level scientists willing to take over his role, to push back anti-intellectualism in public debate. He's among the few "science guys" who bothers to put his 2 cents out there.
 
Last edited:
Kafir-kun said:
The reason suicide bombing happened in that war is because the Iranian military, which was fucking yuge and armed to the teeth before the Revolution, was purged hard by Khomeini because they were the backbone of the Shah's regime. Saddam saw the period right after the Revolution as a perfect time to strike Iran because of this and so Khomeini, in an attempt to make up for the weakness of his military, basically created the story of a child martyr who blew himself up under an Iraqi tank with a grenade to serve as a model of resistance against the Iraqi invasion and more or less created the modern Islamic suicide bomber. Its no wonder then that Hezbollah would go on to use the tactic in the 80s given their connection to the Islamic Republic.

Or in other words, Harris doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...



It's too bad people don't get rewarded for knowing ridiculously random shit like this. The sad part is "normal" uninformed sheeple would think you were weird for knowing this.

I can't imagine what you think of them...
 
Lex Bigelow said:
No one would have heard of him if he was white or conservative.
Click to expand...
He's popular because he inspires people to be interested in science. Being black doesn't automatically do that. Crazy, I know.


Jesus christ you are dumb, lol.
 
TheGreatA said:
I give Harris some benefit of the doubt here. He probably realized that any impact that he could have made within the scientific world, was likely going to be minimal compared to him acting as a spokesperson for science. There are many bright individuals around, doing legitimate scientific work, but few of them are articulate and even fewer are willing to waste the time of their day on religion or politics.

Yet, if scientists completely ignore the world around them, as they often tend to do, the narrative may be hi-jacked by people who do not really give a shit about their scientific work, and have no interest in arguing in its behalf. Harris is a guy who realized that there was essentialy an empty slot that he could fill, as someone who is a good enough talker and has some sort of a scientific background to legitimize him in the eyes of the public.

It's easy to ridicule him, I've certainly taken a few jabs at him myself, but it's not like there are a bunch of genius-level scientists willing to take over his role, to push back anti-intellectualism in public debate. He's among the few "science guys" who bothers to put his 2 cents out there.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, what jabs have you taken at him?
 
I really like Black Science Man, but he should just stick to talking about astronomy and astrophysics.

flat,800x800,075,t.jpg


I don't like hearing from famous people, even smart famous people, talking about things that are outside their wheelhouse.
 
silus_2000 said:
He's popular because he inspires people to be interested in science. Being black doesn't automatically do that. Crazy, I know.


Jesus christ you are dumb, lol.
Click to expand...
But he is known as the black science guy and a lot of people want him around because of it, when say Ben Carson, could be known for the same thing.
You are just calling me names.
You are gotten to.
 
The ScorpioN said:
I'm curious, what jabs have you taken at him?
Click to expand...

Well, I've criticized him as being very "basic" in most of his outlooks, perhaps caring too much about presenting an intellectual front, which handicaps him from truly elaborating on any subject with greater insight. He is very aware that his entire reputation would crumble if he adopted positions "outside of the box", so he rarely strays outside of a very controlled narrative.

At times he comes off as rigidly trying to stay "logical" and "consistent" in conversations where there's no real need to stick to an argumentative stance. A man does not always need to try to prove that he is smarter than somebody else, especially when it is pretty clear that they probably are. He's not usually debating rocket scientists, after all (although he may have been doing so here).

Ultimately, I find him to be a man who is too overly concerned with public perception of his work, for someone who claims to be seeking the scientific truths about the world. From what I've seen, I doubt he will be making much advancement in that regard, with the way he is going on about it.

I'd call him more of a philosopher than a scientist, because he's more interested in that which cannot be proven (nor measured), than that which can be.
 
Lex Bigelow said:
But he is known as the black science guy and a lot of people want him around because of it, when say Ben Carson, could be known for the same thing.
You are just calling me names.
You are gotten to.
Click to expand...
You sound partially retarded, and i'm not even joking.
 
TheGreatA said:
Well, I've criticized him as being very "basic" in most of his outlooks, perhaps caring too much about presenting an intellectual front, which handicaps him from truly elaborating on any subject with greater insight. He is very aware that his entire reputation would crumble if he adopted positions "outside of the box", so he rarely strays outside of a very controlled narrative.

At times he comes off as rigidly trying to stay "logical" and "consistent" in conversations where there's no real need to stick to an argumentative stance. A man does not always need to try to prove that he is smarter than somebody else, especially when it is pretty clear that they probably are. He's not usually debating rocket scientists, after all (although he may have been doing so here).

Ultimately, I find him to be a man who is too overly concerned with public perception of his work, for someone who claims to be seeking the scientific truths about the world. From what I've seen, I doubt he will be making much advancement in that regard, with the way he is going on about it.

I'd call him more of a philosopher than a scientist, because he's more interested in that which cannot be proven (nor measured), than that which can be.
Click to expand...
A vague and overly generalized critique.
 
The video is from 2006. Tyson's views have changed quite a bit since then. He's more on the progressive left side than I'd like I'll give you that but I think this video is an unfair portrayal of modern day him given that it's been such a long time. If you listen to his more recent podcasts with Harris he sounds quite different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,073
Messages
55,465,417
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top