Neil deGrasse Tyson: We Wrestle Because It's Hard

[Balto]

That's a very specific problem that your professor had a proof for. Someone had to determine that at some point and then did so because they asked questions. At this point we're at a philosophical difference. I believe that asking all questions is worthwhile. Like "Can the beauty of art be explained?" Yes. You assumed no, and didn't want to ask the question to begin with.

Yes it is a philosophical difference.

Some questions I believe can be meaningful questions without ever really having an answer. I guess it's the "If a tree falls in the woods" question thing. The search might be good, but that doesn't mean I believe the search will ever yield an answer. Some things I believe are just set up that way.

 

[Leify]

The ground rules just seem awfully convenient to have created things the way that they are. If they were set even a little different, there would be no such thing as light. It works out perfectly.

Well, does existence need light? Obviously our current existence seems to, but what about another form of existence. It's hard to even picture right? If I told you to picture a 4-dimensional object, you couldn't. The best you could probably do is picture a tesseract, a 3-dimensional representation of a 4-dimensional object, like a cube drawn on paper.

Really, our understanding of these kind of things is probably inherently flawed because we're slaves to our current ability to percieve.

 

[Rod1]

Well, does existence need light? Obviously our current existence seems to, but what about another form of existence. It's hard to even picture right? If I told you to picture a 4-dimensional object, you couldn't. The best you could probably do is picture a tesseract, a 3-dimensional representation of a 4-dimensional object, like a cube drawn on paper.

Really, our understanding of these kind of things is probably inherently flawed because we're slaves to our current ability to percieve.

Yes, but that doesnt explains why things exist in the first place, which is by itself a questiong that breaks the mold of human perception of the world.

So for the moment, ill go with the Lucy Lawless quote "A wizard did it".

Maybe in the future we will know, but right now we are like humans were before the invention of geocentrism.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Maybe in the future we will know, but right now we are like humans were before the invention of geocentrism.

And many people like to fill that gap with their version of a god.
The problem is that we know now that those gaps can be filled with non-supernatural explanations. Once it wasn't absurd to think that tides were caused by an oceanic god. Contrary to Bill O'Reilly we know that's not the case now. The default assumption anymore shouldn't be "god".

 

[Rod1]

And many people like to fill that gap with their version of a god.
The problem is that we know now that those gaps can be filled with non-supernatural explanations. Once it wasn't absurd to think that tides were caused by an oceanic god. Contrary to Bill O'Reilly we know that's not the case now. The default assumption anymore shouldn't be "god".

Yeah, but as science advances it gets more and more abstract and hard to understand so a wizard did it.

Nah, just kidding, i just cant possibly fathom a lot of things, like eternity.

 

[WARRIOR POET]

And many people like to fill that gap with their version of a god.
The problem is that we know now that those gaps can be filled with non-supernatural explanations. Once it wasn't absurd to think that tides were caused by an oceanic god. Contrary to Bill O'Reilly we know that's not the case now. The default assumption anymore shouldn't be "god".

the religion this Neil deDumbass Tyson tries to rip on is not the old greek or heathen religions. he rips on christianity. christians do not think that god is down here juggling the natural phenomenon like waves and day changing. he doesn't pick on judaism because that would make him an anti-semite. he does not pick on islam because he would be a racist or get a contract on his life.

the saddest thing is that he somewhat knows his shit in science and he thinks this makes him a philosopher or theologian.

yes, NDT, science can scientifically prove EVERYTHING (scientism, ha,)

lets not even get into proving the soul exists or god. how about MOTIVES? can we scientifically prove that motives exist? are lawyers and judges living in a fairy tale where motives and unicorn kiss?


for sure. NDT needs to keep feeding morons comparisons of how big one thing is compared to another and regurgitating facts that real scientists discovered. there are plenty of idiots to impress out there, NDT. lol. they are easy to spot. you see people wearing helmets on a bus and you got yourself some suckers.

NDT is basically the Lloyd Irvin of physics.

 

[alaykala04]

I just want to say that NDT is a great science promoter. Among intellectuals, he can get a bit annoying especially when he talks about philosophy (which he is highly critical of) and other subjects that are not related to physics. I see him as having a reactionary perspective on religion based on the people he has encountered.

 

[Balto]

I just want to say that NDT is a great science promoter. Among intellectuals, he can get a bit annoying especially when he talks about philosophy (which he is highly critical of) and other subjects that are not related to physics. I see him as having a reactionary perspective on religion based on the people he has encountered.

Yeah that's the scientism problem. Science is awesome, and I love science. That being said, I also understand that science is only one field of intellectual pursuit.

Philosophy is not science, but it's still a very important part of learning. I'm glad we have it. Even mathematics is not a science, and I'm sure glad we have that. Some people will try to claim that mathematics is a science, but mathematicians will tell you why that is only a superficial resemblance.

Science takes the rules of the world as a given, and attempts to explain them using the scientific method. Math makes up its own rules, and then constructs an abstract world that results from them. Pure mathematicians will do this out of a sense of pure beauty of the intellectual pursuit, and many will brag about how utterly useless in the real world some of their beautiful mathematical results are.

Pretending like science alone holds the keys to all intellectual knowledge just destroys all of that. When NDT says religion has no place in his science classroom, I agree. It does not have a place in science. They are different fields.

That being said, it has a place among the other intellectual pursuits. There are supposed to be seven fields in the liberal arts. Science is one of these, but only one. Just replacing the other six with science is as bad as getting rid of science would be.