Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Neil deGrasse Tyson has claimed that the refusal of the Trump administration to bow to every scientific demand presented to politicians is a threat to democracy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says science deniers in White House are a profound threat to democracy
The scientist spoke out as thousands around the world prepare to march
One of America’s most influential and popular scientists has issued a stark warning over what he termed the Trump administration’s rejection of science – saying it is a threat to the country’s “informed democracy”.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the StarTalk podcast and TV show and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, said when he grew up, the US had relied on science to drive its innovation. But no longer.
“People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,” he says in a video posted on Facebook. “That’s not the country I remember growing up in. I don’t remember any other time where people were standing in denial of what science was.”
…
In my opinion, the problem with people like Tyson is they think they have a monopoly on being right. And there are a lot of reasons for thinking Tyson is not right about everything.
Climate Science in particular has an atrocious track record of failed predictions, dating all the way back to James Hansen’s exaggerated Scenario A.
Nothing bad is happening to the global climate, despite efforts by climate scientists to hype up every twitch of the thermometer.
The only tangible effect of anthropogenic CO2 to date is that CO2 is greening the Earth, stimulating faster plant growth, and more drought resilience across a broad range of species.
Claims by climate scientists that the science is “settled” are unconvincing.
To suggest it is unreasonable to have doubts about alarmist climate projections in the face of such a shambolic track record of failure and exaggeration in my opinion is pure arrogance – personal hubris dressed up as scientific opinion.
Video of Tyson explaining why it is wrong to disagree with him
Update (EW): Replaced the video above with a longer version of Tyson’s presentation
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Old Neil Tyson loves the sound of his own voice, and he’s clearly got plenty of self esteem.
Here’s a nice bit of counterpoint to the bovine excrement notion that “climate science” is “settled science” that I appeared within a week previously.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/theres-still-lot-we-dont-know-about-proton
There’s still a lot we don’t know about the proton
While even the folks who have devoted decades of 24/7/365 effort to understanding the climate, of which there appear to be very few, have never demonstrated mastery of the subject matter much beyond that shown by Mssrs. Nye and Tyson, their sycophants endlessly repeat the mantra that any questions about what may be involved in perfectly describing the Earth’s climate have been answered long ago. In the mean time, the chumps wasting their time trying to conquer physics are still battling it out over such niceties
as the radius of the proton, what causes its spin, and whether or not it decays.
As I have seen the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis explained it is mostly and probably entirely a matter of radiative physics in which the energy from the Sun landing on the Earth is returned to space in the form of, wait for it, those inscrutable protons. Of course Arrhenius who is usually credited with birthing this orphan, did so several decades before the proton was ever observed and named, but what do I know, compared to these geniuses who would like to put any of us that have the temerity to disagree with them in a jail cell somewhere for crimes against our betters
The “emergent truth” he speaks of is that the AGW line is bunkum. And on that, he is correct when he says, “People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,”
It’s sad to find out that Tyson is as dumb as Nye.
While this is an interesting and worthwhile perspective, I would like to suggest that, according to their own words, the early scientists who were Christians did hold the “belief” that nature is subservient to the rule of law, and that these laws can be discovered, understood, and utilized to make life better for every day people. In short, we can rely on the laws of nature as consistent and continuous. And just as there are physical laws which are reliable and consistent, there are moral and spiritual laws, the violation of which “makes all the trouble in the world — whether physical, moral or social.” But this basic “belief” in the rule of law in the universe enabled the patient use of facts, observations, and experiment to discover those laws. The corollary is that these laws, once discovered, could be useful for the improvement of life and the increase of our power over nature.
“Compared to what?” Well, there are philosophies and outlooks which claim that there is no law, no cause and effect, and no consistency in the physical universe. There was also over awed reverence for the ancient Greek philosophers which froze learning for centuries. Or compared to the Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm shift of the 60’s, which insists that all human activity harms the environment and triggers “tipping points” in nature. –Even turning on lights at night. Gracious.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Zeke.
“… the early scientists who were Christians did hold the “belief” that nature is subservient to the rule of law, and that these laws can be discovered, understood, and utilized to make life better for every day people. In short, we can rely on the laws of nature as consistent and continuous.”
And yet, the laws were His, so absolute certainty about their nature was inappropriate;
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Mr. Newton was apparently right about some laws . . but not absolutely ; )
“Religion and science are two different ways of “knowing”, one based upon faith and the other on doubt.”
Yes but the “faith” or “belief” these individuals held was that in God’s creation order prevails, and that while there are infinite varieties of forms, they are subject to laws. In other words, every effect must have its cause. (This applies to the moral and spiritual as well as physical.) Discovering laws, understanding causes and effects gives repeatable results, and those were used to improve life in various inventions and tools. And that was the basis of the science of the Reformation and the American Revolution. I think we can say it was successful.
Zeke,
Yes, but the scientific method is now under assault, along with the rest of Western industrial civilization.
Scientists since the 18th century Enlightenment still believe it’s possible to discover laws underlying observed nature, even if they no longer imagine a Creator or Law-giver. Others however aren’t so sure about immutable laws governing everything from subatomic particles to the universe as a whole, let alone other universes in which different laws apply.
JohnKnight says, “And yet, the laws were His, so absolute certainty about their nature was inappropriate;”
Yes, the limitations our own human understanding are an important theme in the Bible. We are reminded often that we just don’t have the whole picture. God answers Job’s questions with 79 questions of His own. “Do you know the balancing of the clouds? Do you know how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child? Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you?”
So often in life we are only seeing appearances; but we don’t have all the data, and should avoid getting too confident in the explanatory tales we weave. That was once a value in science but now they just want experts to lock in their favorite paradigm and re-write the past to fit it.
I would put it differently, based on my own experiences. Belief in God through faith proceeds from witness to His creation. Marvel at any sunset, at any geographical prominence, at any plant, at any animal, and you will know what I mean. Pursuit of science proceeds from a desire for knowledge (curiosity) and–get this–a complete faith in the truthfulness of others, because the fundamental operational principle of science is “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” This is the crux of what is happening with the “global warming” issue: there are those who have chosen to deceive themselves and others about what is true, and what can be inferred from what is true. To choose a lie is profoundly wicked, insofar as God is the source of all truth (not merely scriptural truth). Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously fought against “the lie” as being the worst evil to befall Russia.
As for the Bible, I accept that it is true, that there is a truth behind the writing that the writing does express, even if it is something we cannot today understand. Moses was not an astrophysicist, so we should stop pretending that he speaks to us as an astrophysicist. But he expressed the truth as it was given him, within the means of his ability to express it. If science cannot accept that there are areas in which we are still ignorant, and remain aware of that fact, then it will be driven by hubris to fill all the gaps with fantasy and declare it to be truth. As I see it, this has substantially happened not only in “climate science” but also with cosmology and maybe some parts of geophysics. A measure of this corruption is the acceptance of computer simulations and mathematical projections as “data” and “evidence.” When our eyes are turned away from witness and instead regard the workings of our own imagination, who has really capitulated to “faith” in the realm of science?
Zeke and John.
Lots of Christians do say that they know for sure that the Bible is inerrant.
“Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so;”
That ditty, is OK, but saying you know that there was a global flood 4500 years ago which covered the highest mountains because the Bible tells you so is a different matter.
The early generations of Christian scientists did believe that there were universal laws, which they set out to discover, or at least aspects of reality reflecting those laws. However, their efforts to overturn pagan science adopted by the Church were generally opposed by the authorities.
Religion and science are two different ways of “knowing”, one based upon faith and the other on doubt. At least in some Protestant denominations, correct theology is that God must remain hidden, that He cannot be known through reason, but only revelation. Otherwise, having faith in Him would have no value. The faithful must believe what is miraculous, outside of nature as normally experienced, incredible and indeed absurd, on blind faith alone, not basing his religious convictions on rational observation.
As Luther said, “A Christian must tear the eyes out of his reason.” As Early Church Father Tertulian said, “I believe because it is absurd.”
Protestants come down on the side of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans rather than the Epistle of James.
Romans says:
“…because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . ” (Rom. 3:20)
“…for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28)
“For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'” (Rom. 4:3)
“Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . ” (Rom. 5:1)
“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5).
But James says:
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)
“…so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26).
“Lots of Christians do say that they know for sure that the Bible is inerrant.”
What do you suggest, O god-man? Fines? Imprisonment? Executions?
“Romans says …. But James says ….”
Both are much longer and more complex than that … but you are undermining your case for Christian certaintism something fierce, me thinks ; )
Unelected politicized “scientists” are a far bigger threat.