This is great. Mike Rowe, of “Dirty Jobs” does a weekly podcast/Facebook posting called “How I Heard It”. His “Off the Wall” segments are always enlightening, because, Rowe dishes out some of his characteristic common sense by answering a question or comment from a fan, or in some cases, someone who isn’t a fan at all. I get some of those same kinds of emails he does.
In his latest “Off the Wall” Facebook posting, Rowe replied to a comment made by a woman named “Rebecca Bright”. Bright says she is a fan of the show “How the Universe Works,” which Rowe does the voice over work for, but suggested Rowe to get fired from narrating the show because, according to her, he’s apparently one of those “science deniers” that we often hear about from the left. Although the show was about black holes and galaxies, Mike even managed to work in global warming as an example of why she’s wrong. Here’s the complaint and the response from his Facebook page:
Rebecca Bright writes…
“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show. There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”
—-
Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?
First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!
It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.
As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.
Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information. Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called “Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling, right?
Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!! http://bit.ly/2jB0Nq7 But here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess what? So do the experts.
When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.
You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.
Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?
Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.
Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?
I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.
In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.
Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode. It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.
Best,
Mike
UPDATE!
Rebecca Bright responds, so does Mike Rowe:
Rebecca Bright You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.
Mike in his usual style, gets the last word brilliantly:
Mike Rowe Well, I’ve re-read your response twice, and can’t seem to find any additional proof. Look – you’re under no obligation to reply – obviously. Neither am I . But this is your comment. You’re an author, right? You write for a living, yes? No pressure, but come on, Becky. You’re talking to five million people right now. Most writers would kill for a chance to say something meaningful to an audience that size. Dig deep. Be brave. Say something persuasive, but do it quick. My plane lands in twenty….
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
LOL…..made my day
Rebecca “Bright”. Double-LOL.
Latitude and Bruce: you are so right and Mike is so cool! And note to all you young’ins: we may be innocent until proven guilty but data are guilty until proven innocent!!! Like perps, data will lie to you and they need “witnesses” to back up their story.
Yeah, more like “Rebecca Dim Bulb” – LOL.
I like this:
And in true cultist fashion, she fires back with the same sophomoric drivel that we’ve come to expect from the cult.
Sounds like I’m going to have to catch up on this show.
her name would appear to be an oxymoron . with the emphasis on moron.
Rebecca’s logic, saying that he should not have the job unless he agrees with the text he is reading, means that she also thinks anyone who is not a global warmist should not be allowed to have any job.
Would she be okay with denying a manicurist a job because the prospective employee believed that natural cycles and the Sun drive the climate? What in heck does that have to do with her job? Same thing here. He was hired for his voice not his beliefs.
This just underscores how the whole AGW BS story is essentially a secular religion. The heretics must be punished for their heresy.
Rowe said the next episode was Multiple Stars…….there’s so many triggers in his reply he much be referring to lib heads exploding
I doubt that’s what he meant, since his essay pointedly rejects mindless name calling or jeering. I disagree with Mike Rowe on many things, but I respect the way he communicates and his values, even if they aren’t mine, and his response here was well put. I feel like this sort of comment doesn’t seem like something he would endorse though, just because it’s from the ‘side’ or POV he agrees with. But carry on.
Gee whiz, that sonofabitch can write very eloquently (unlike myself)
And exhibit class personified in the process.
I used to refer to Mike Rowe as “the future Senator from Ohio”, but I realize now that that’s one dirty job he might not be willing to do.
ricksanchez769
Agreed. if he writes his own stuff (the response to Becky Bright, as well as many other monologues I’ve heard him deliver on Dirty Jobs), he’s gifted.
Also good to see a response this brutal in the sense he didn’t ceed any argument to her and he’s directly challenged her to back up her accasations. And he did all this without flaming her.
Just a wild guess: ‘ole Becky is gonna have real difficulty standing her ground responding to Mike’s intellectual challenge.
Wild guess #2: Becky will never even try to respond; her entrenched mind-set hates him because of his (totally non-violent, non-criminal) thoughts.
Wild Guess #3, Becky will never even read the response since she’s convinced herself that she has schooled him and therefore the conversation is over.
@MarkW,
Correct. It is like playing chess with a pidgeon. All they do is kick over the pieces and then strut around the board declaring victory.
She is two retorts away from devolving to a charge of racism, sexism, misogyny.
@FTOP_T LMFAO good thing I didn’t have any food in my mouth! That is the most precise description of arguing with a global warming/climate change advocate I’ve ever heard – like playing chess with a pidgeon – HAH!
I thought exactly the same thing. Clear eloquent and very unbiased, even stating that he supports people having alternative views.
“science without doubt isn’t science at all” – so perfect.
The scientific method is the way we tackle doubt in order to reduce it.
Politicised abuse as part of an ideology is the way we cement the doubt in place, untouched and even worshipped.
#Komrade Kuma: “Politicised abuse as part of an ideology is the way we cement the doubt in place, untouched and even worshipped.” How beautifully expressed, and how utterly correct. Thank you!!
But Mike, there is ample evidence that black holes really DO exist.
Black Holes must exist because that is where all the intelligence of people like Ms, Notso Bright gets sucked in, never to come out again.
These things are really dense.
Like, I mean, REALLY REALLY REALLY dense.
I mean, like, TOTALLY DENSE, y’know?
🙂
TOTALLY DENSE, …… like a Black Hole, …….. ya know.
Show us the evidence, not extrapolations or wild ass guesses. Not the pushed math.
Shur nuff, Black Holes really do exist, ….. likewise, …. White Holes also really do exist.
Black Holes are thingys where everything gets sucked in and nothing leaves, …… like “centers” of galaxies.
Whereas White Holes are thingys where everything leaves and nothing ever returns, ……. like the State of West Virginia, USA.
@Biff;
Do you know what a “send up” is, or did you just reflexively get on that particular hobby horse?
But this is assuming that she and other like her had intelligence to begin with. I’m not convinced of that.
You know, one thing that does strike me about the exchange – Mike gave an extraordinary amount of time to politely and carefully discuss her false claims about him. And her response is “You have FAR too much time on your hand(s) to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s (sic) opinion (sic) or write a novel (sic) at them.” Besides being written in barely coherent English, she is essentially saying her attempts to get Mike fired are not worth Mike’s time in preventing, because he is too busy doing his job.
Does that make a lick of sense to anyone? I might counter that she obviously has FAR too much time on her hands, to try and get Mike fired from a show she loves.
I suspect that Mike is writing for the benefit of all his followers, not just Rebecca. That is what deserves his thoughtful answer.
Not only his followers, but also anyone that reads the exchange without previuosly knowing any of them.
Just turned on the show; it’s not Mike.
Bright has a bright idea. Hire an actor. Yes, par for the course for the scientific literates on the left. Now, exactly which actors to thrill us with their acumen.
DiCaprio?
DiCraprio!!
Marion Cotilard.
An firm believer in CAGW … and conspiracy theory about 9/11. I don’t know if she believe moon landing was faked.
Harry Weinstein? Dustin Hoffman? Charlie Rose? Matt Lauer?
Bill Cosby.
“ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole”
A great comment, on multiple levels 🙂
Such a Pythonesque comment I just laughed. Love it. Tell someone to go to hell so nicely they look forward to the trip. Classic.
What’s amazing to me is that he writes just like he talks. One easily recognizes his signature polite, relaxed, common sense coming through. It’s remarkable.
OH MY MY, ……. the lefty liberal Democrats will now be demanding he be fired for making such a dastardly “racist” remark.
Now that you write it, “black hole” sounds so racist a name for these objects.
I am sure someone already complained, no need to search.
Mike Rowe, one of the smartest man I have seen talking. His advice about trade schools instead of universities as a way for the young is excellent.
As an older-timer with a PhD in atmospheric science I, unfortunately, am concurring more and more with the idea that learning a trade is a better way to go than university. The science and math in universities is becoming so dumbed-down that many students are graduating science/physics programs without even knowing very basic concepts such as derivatives, integrals, logarithms, etc. It is becoming increasingly difficult for professors to provide anything other than “playtime” science to keep the students entertained. “Feel-good” science is replacing the hard science and physics that we had to learn.
I am sorry for going somewhat off topic, but it is a concern and only getting worse.
I disagree. I think you are EXACTLY on topic. It was poor education that gave us “Rebecca Bright”.
And btw – I love Mike Rowe. Clear, concise and spot-on.
Really, you think that? I had to learn all of your examples just for my lowly geology degree. My daughter is an upper division physics major at UC Santa Barbara. She transferred from a southern California junior college where she became proficient up thru differential equations and linear algebra. Three classes in quantum mechanics, along with other standard physics subjects so far. She is in the fight of her life but she is doing it. I don’t think they are “dumbing it down” there.
My reply was to Max. I’m not disagreeing with Leghorn or Max necessarily, but I think Max generalized somewhat too far. No doubt most people are not very educated in the maths and sciences, but that does not mean they can’t think critically and possibly hold skeptical views of subjects like climate science. Conversely, just because a person understands math and physics doesn’t mean they have the perspective and background to develop a naturally skeptical approach to subjects outside their field of study.
Max,
I concur with your assessment of the state of higher education. I recently decided to refresh my math background by going back to college. After nearly 60 years, I’m sure I have forgotten a lot of the fine points and didn’t think that it was prudent to try to jump right into partial differential equations. So, I decided to start with a pre-calculus class. After about 5 hours of lecture, I can say unequivocally that the pace is not nearly as demanding or challenging as what I experienced the first time around.
As a ‘Senior,’ I didn’t have to pay the rather substantial tuition for just auditing the course. I thought that a registration fee of $18 was quite reasonable. However, I then discovered that all the homework and tests were to be administered online, and to get access to My.Math.Lab, I was expected to pay $100 just for a ‘key.’ The hardcover text was something like $190! Beyond that, one was expected to have a scientific calculator. It appears that the classes have been ‘dumbed-down’ to maximize the enrollment and thus maximize the income for the college. I think that many of the students who benefit most directly from a less challenging curriculum might well be better served in some sort of trade school.
As a Mechanical Engineer with over 20 years experience in the field, (mostly machine and tool design) I can see coming in the near future a real lack of craftsmen in our industry. We put such an emphasis on scientific and technical degrees, that some of the more hands-on trades like machinists, welders, fabricators, etc…started losing appeal to the kids coming out of HS. We really do need to do a better job of showing just how important trade schools, and the training they provide are to our economy. When the current generation of craftsmen is retired, they’ll leave behind a rather large void in skilled labor and production capability.
Not to worry, John! That upcoming dearth of skilled craftsmen will be filled by advanced robot. Problem solved!
I and some colleagues were evaluating possible textbooks for our department’s introductory Information Systems course. After a while we began to joke about some of the things we we seeing in the texts, and had seen in textbook publishing. Eventually it led to the satire at http://textbookripoff.com/
” a trade is a better way to go than university.”…
Friend has a PhD Marine Biology….worked for NOAA and the Parks…..went to a Evinrude/Johnson trade school to become a outboard mechanic……now has his own boat repair business and makes a fortune
My two cents (or, half-pfennig, in most cases) on this thread:
I run a walk-in tutoring facility at a junior college; we help students with all levels of Math. Yes, most of our Professors and Adjuncts (myself included) use an on-line website to assign “homework” questions. The costs, even for just an on-line are astronomical [pun intended], but the texts themselves are even worse! I bought my first Calculus text (1972) for $15.95, and I thought that was outrageous.
But, what is more disturbing is this: students do not even need to do the assignments any longer. One day, just this past December, I was assisting a student and (as usual) I was making a consistent arithmetic mistake (and neither the student nor I was catching the error), so a young lady comes over and offers to assist. She holds her phone up to the screen, and without a nanosecond of hesitation, the correct answer is displayed on her phone! I looked at her (my jaw on the floor), and asked, ‘where did you get that application?’ She answered, it came with the phone. She went on to share that she uses it for every class: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology … … … It would appear there is no limit to what subject these phones can solve questions/problems for.
I left a message on “Tips and Notes” shortly after this event, and even went to a “Weekday Unthreaded” on JoNova; and yes, I immediately notified my Department Chair and Dean of our School.
Somehow, the movie “Idiocracy” keeps popping up in my head … … …
Regards to all,
Vlad
+ 1, Max and Matheus
Ralph Westfall,
Unfortunately, the satire is all too true. Back when i was teaching at Foothill College in the ’70s, the faculty and students were starting to become concerned about the cost of texts (even when they were 1/10th of today’s cost!). Textbook company rep’s were talking about getting books printed on demand with just the chapters covered by the instructors, to keep the costs down. Apparently that never happened.
Incidentally, I did find the previous edition of the $190 textbook on Amazon for $12.95. I probably couldn’t get away with using it if I was taking the course for credit.
I do feel sorry for today’s student who is getting courses watered down from the level of the Sputnik Emergency revisions, and paying a lot more for them! But this all does go a long way towards explaining why the current generation of students and recent graduates are taken in by the Media and alarmist PhD’s.
The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler,
Imagine that if we get another Carrington Event (or a regionall EMP, thanks to North Korea). Not only will the infrastructure for delivering food, repairing transformers, and other trivial things of such ilk be impossible, but those who have become dependent on their smartphones probably won’t be able to work simple math problems. The person who owns and knows how to work a slide rule will be king.
Not all universities, for sure. And it is reassuring to hear that some still teach the “hard” sciences. But far too many are not, especially in Canada. So much so, that the Canadian operational meteorology course has had to reject graduated students with the supposed degrees in science because they do not have even the basic fundamentals necessary.
In a group of “Engineers” visiting a workshop and having the owner show all a Loud Mouth in the group who was a recent receiver of an engineering degree asked what was the “things” on the workbench used for ( a micrometer )
Yup. Those engineers look damn silly standing in a field because there’s no concreters, carpenters or sparkies to build the factory they designed.
Mr Rowe’s elegant response speaks volumes as to why he has and should have the narration job for the How The Universe Works program for the last 6 seasons (26 episodes) and to why he should continue to do so for another 6 seasons.
I’d like to recommend Mike Rowe for the post of Presidential Science Advisor, or maybe just President
Presidential Science Advisor would be great. President is taken, and requires as particular canning ability to troll the propaganda media these days. Anyone other than Trump would be destroyed because the media are so incredibly biased.
I assume you mean “a particularly canny”. I will be using pieces of this to troll my lefty family and aquaintances.
A clever and effective riposte.
Whether the lady reads it, understands it and reflects on it?
Doubtful
If you follow the link to Mike’s Facebook post. You can read her clueless reply. She didn’t learn anything, just accused him of “writing a novel at (her)”.
Writing a novel “at” her?
So snowflake Becky, who was shown previously to be struggling with climate “science” and black holes, also struggles with cogent thought & English sentence construction.
PS: 1,285 words now counts as a novel (which, by definition, is fiction; I doubt Becky understood the irony)?
To the twitter generation, over 1000 words is unbearably long.
This reinforces my sense that Mike Rowe is one of the most insightful social thinkers of our time. Wow. Thanks for posting this on WUWT!
One of the most intelligent, well-expressed retorts I’ve read in many a year.
As I understand it, Mike Rowe trained as an operatic singer; not an easy discipline.
I thought he owned MikeRowesoft.
John M. W.: I love your story — it’s great, me and my family love this guy — but, in Mike’s own words: he learned a bit of opera so that he could fake his way into some musicians’ union … so that, in turn, he could then get into some sort of affiliated screen actors’ union.
Haha! Great story. See the following Mike Rowe personal appearance on CNN [yuck!], in his own words and operatic singing voice, telling this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MItlvHdoQ-8
PiperPaul,
OK, I’ll admit it – I laughed at your pun. But then, I’m known for my “dad” jokes, so this kind of humor suits me.
The higher the IQ the dryer the humor. That’s what my dad said.
Typing and writing must come very easily to him. Amazing, well thought out and articulate answer to something that hardly deserved a reply.
Clarity of thought in writing. I wish I had one. I wish I had clarity of thought without writing.
Don’t sell yourself short, Hugs. 🙂
TA
I’ll second that expression on Hugs.
Wish I had the clarity of writing without thought…..
I have to say it was not snarky at all, just ‘matter-of-fact’.
Nice job Mr. Rowe. I like Dirty Jobs. Hope you can survive the propaganda and keep yours.
Doug, the future is far in the past when most kids graduating high school could articulate a clear thought in a sentence or a clear idea in a paragraph.
Now that is a good slap down.
I agree with this gentleman but can he explain his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God?Just a matter of logic! Oh and when did we believe the earth was flat? A matter of science history, Cicero knew it wasn’t. Maybe scientists don’t study history or philosophy and should not pronounce on them with as much confidence as when they speak of scientific matters.
m e,
Oh and when did we believe . . .flat
Well, this idea was promoted a number of years ago (150 ?) in the English speaking world. I’ve looked it up, and so can you.
About God? I raked up about 5 bushels of Black Walnuts last fall. They prove there is not a loving God, per the Christian teaching. A loving God would put little zippers in these tasty morsels.
John F. Hulquist
Isn’t that a superficial mischaracterization. The real God offers to work with and involve us in our challenges: See Jeremiah 3:33
Have you thought to ask?
So you don’t like the “dirty job” of cracking walnuts?
@ur momisugly John…that is because He was thinking of the squirrels.
As a matter of fact I just pointed out that it is not logical to use the number of stars to prove there is no God .
It was a comment on Logic. A scientist should be logical. or he will end up believing in Global Warming.
This is not the proper venue to argue about the existence of God ,so the idea that Victorians decided there is no God should affect our ideas now is beside the point.
Romans believed the world was an infinitely small point in a vast universe.see Somnium Sciponis a work where ,I believe, Cicero talks of the size of the universe.. I haven’t read it but I expect you can on line.
.Science text books don’t bother to check facts of history. Maybe they want to influence the minds of science graduates I hope not.
This why C P Snow warned of the Two Cultures . q.v.
You need to buy a Nut Wizzard. It will cut the time of your ordeal in half.
http://www.nutwizard.com/prod01.htm
P.S. I own one but have no financial stake in that business.
You pointed out logic regarding your own false straw man; not regarding any statement Mike Rowe made.
Mike Rowe did not make any such statement as you claim.
Mike Rowe made no such claim(s) in his response. Gross assumption on your part.
I think Mr. Rowe would agree there is no intersection between belief(religion) and science(the physical world).
Many people make erroneous arguments that try to “prove” there is no God. Beliefs exist in the mind and can’t be proven or disproven. They simply exist- outside the real world. The physical world contains ideas and possibilities that logically can’t be proven(Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem among others).
>>
philohippous
January 15, 2018 at 7:51 am
The physical world contains ideas and possibilities that logically can’t be proven(Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem among others).
<<
Both of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have been proven (it’s why they are called theorems). However, you may have meant that there are statements in an axiomatic system of logic that can’t be proven either true or false per Gödel’s theorem. In that case, you are correct.
Jim
Apparently, M E can’t read or doesn’t want to. Here is what Mike Rowe actually said:
“Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. ”
Next time, M E, read the entire thing, word for word, before making a comment that clearly shows you did not read anything. You just assumed.
+ 1.9 trillion
Thanks I read it and made the remark The idea of the ancient world and medieval world believing the world was flat is erroneous. See ‘The Discarded Image’ by C S Lewis a medieval scholar of Oxford University.Speaking about the world view of Ancient and Medieval times found in Literature
. That’s what I mean about Two Cultures.
I said I agreed with the gentleman……..but his historical assumptions were erroneous.Why the flurry of anti religious feeling… ?
“can he explain his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God?”
While it seems like a non-sequitur, I’d be interested in this proof! Of course, one would have to define this God that is proven to not exist.
“Oh and when did we believe the earth was flat?”
There is no WE. You have your beliefs and I have mine. As it happens, rather a lot of Ohio or Minnesota IS flat!
“Cicero knew it wasn’t.”
Well, perhaps he believed it wasn’t. Knowing a thing can sometimes be a lucky coincidence based on something other than scientific evidence.
M E
Just to keep the hair-splitting fair & balanced, Mike Rowe’s text did not claim “his own settled opinion that the number of stars prove that there is no God”. Mike provided a link to an article by Lindsay Brooke, of the Royal Astronomical Society. There is no reference in Mike’s text to the number of stars proving there is no god.
Your accusations appear to have made out of thin air.
Knowing how to read and click on links is a good skill to have. You should aspire to it.
Thank you! I did read the post. I made a remark about logic.
My background is in archaeology and ancient history.
I only look in on this blog because I thought it was a scientific blog where logic would be used on subjects like past climates.
I have been on line since 1998.so I probably know about links.
I think we originally had to type them in!
i don’t use wikipedia as it is biased in my opinion.
Ideas of the past have been moving since the 19th century except in science text books. In My Opinion.
I can recommend. “The Idea of Prehistory” by Glyn Daniel of Cambridge University. it appears to be an online text and is enlightening about the world views of Victorian thinkers who believed in a development of Human Society from Noble Savage to Farmer to City Dweller.
They did no scientific investigation. This Progress of Man is still believed by Green Party politicians. Others also want to break down society so we will all return to that Golden Age.
It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny by archaeologists and prehistorians.
Trusting you all will remain logical
What you made was a accusation
Since he doesn’t appear to at any point claim that the number of stars prove that there is no God, this accusation would appear to be a strawman argument. Unless, you can perhaps link to where he claims this?
All the rest you have written appears to be mindless flailing to hide the fact you don’t know what you are talking about.
~¿~
M E writes “I only look in on this blog because I thought it was a scientific blog where logic would be used on subjects like past climates.”
Have you found logic on any blog (other than a blog on logic)?
Science is not logic and logic is not science; they are somewhat orthogonal. You can use logic in an argument that starts with measurements or with pure guesswork; either is still “logical”.
“i don’t use wikipedia as it is biased in my opinion.”
Of course it is biased. I believe nothing exists that is not biased because bias is detectable only when it does not match your own bias. Thus, nothing can exist that all agree is not biased.
What makes Wikipedia unique is that you can edit articles and inject your own bias!
“Trusting you all will remain logical”
That would be Mr. Spock. For everyone else logic is in the service of argument. Learn the fallacies, use them with skill.
Sorry to tell Rebecca, but she is a coward. First, I am sure Mike doesn’t make up the script for this show. I doubt cosmology is in his area of expertise, which means he is narrator only. Trying to fire a narrator because you don’t like his politics and not because of his work is cowardly. Secondly, not providing logical arguments against Mike’s “beliefs” but rather trying to kill free speech by denigrating and having him fired is cowardly. One of these days these snowflakes are going to run into the real world and will be very disappointed.
This should be on billboards and in classrooms worldwide.
There’s your bumper sticker for 2018 kids, giterdun and slap ’em on!
Mike Rowe is wonderful.
Thanks Eric, as always. For sharing how Mike Rowe so eloquently defended himself, and science, from that Leftist/Globalist/warmist Hater. It is so refreshing, and also a lesson to all of us on how to put a nasty person like that in her place.
Going to undergrad college in 1968-72, I can say that period produced a gaggle of Rebecca Bright’s. What I find really interesting is they continue to be spawned and you absolutely can’t tell one from the late 60’s from one today. It has to be hard-wired into their DNA.
The sad thing is you can’t argue or debate any of them. The wiring of their brain precludes it, so you just have to accept it and go on.
This has been a glaring obstacle in my quest to discuss anything with today’s post-modernist neo-marxist. Pardon the Jordan Peterson lingo but it is accurate. I’ve found commies/CAGW types/socialists/leftists are generally intelligent in theory but not in practice. I understand the import of emotion, however these are nothing but aged children
Hi Anthony – Just as an interesting aside, Mike Rowe went to the same high school (Overlea HS) and college (Towson) that I did in Baltimore. He went later than I did, so I do not know him in person.
The area we went to school is (and was) very much a blue collar area. I suspect that environment is where he picked up his support for vocational education (for the trades) and a down to earth view of issues.
Roger Sr.
That school produced two great men.
That we know of. Maybe more.
EC, yup.
Roger Pielke
Nothing wrong with a vocational education.
I joined Strathclyde Police in 1976 as a 19 year old and was taught to ask questions, lots of questions. I have never stopped asking questions, in fact I ask more now than I did then.
That’s why I continue to ask questions of AGW, because no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer.
Worse still, the answers I am given to demonstrate AGW wouldn’t stand up in a kangaroo court, far less a court of law.
If you have to take science with unskeptical faith that’s not science it’s religan.
Dogmatic Science? Perhaps an oxymoron, perhaps something even stronger for which I cannot even guess the word that should be used.
See Henry Bauer’s Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How dominant theories monopolize research and hinder the search for truth. The Kindle edition is $10 at:
https://www.amazon.com/Dogmatism-Science-Medicine-Dominant-Monopolize/dp/0786463015/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1515979484&sr=8-7&keywords=henry+bauer
As Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Yes, Feynman explained science simply and clearly in his lecture frequently posted here. I would say that science simply cannot advance without the critical roll that skeptics play. In fact, to not doubt what some authority tells you means you have no need to think for yourself. Descartes’ famous quote is rarely presented in whole.
The estimate is order of magnitude, so 100B to 2T is just over one order of magnitude, base 10, but perhaps 3 orders base e.
It never occurred to me you could count in base e.
Like 1ₑ = 2.7, 10ₑ = 7.4, 100ₑ = 20.1, 0.1ₑ = 0.37, 1.1ₑ = 3.1. A painful way of counting.
A highly advanced extraterrestrial intelligence might just adopt such a system. It is called the “natural log” for a reason by mathematicians.
Hugs,
But if you count base 2 on your fingers you can get to 2^10 -1 before you need to go to your toes. If sheep herders had invented base-2 they could have managed flocks of more than 1,000 on their fingers and it might have set ciphering and papyrus rolls back hundreds of years. 🙂
A pedantic way of counting
poor rebecca is still using base 1 – and maybe suffering from envy cuz she can’t count to 11.
Mike Rowe – 1, Rebecca Not so Bright – nil.
No, not – 1 for Mike Rowe, rather, game, set and match. All at love.
….But wasn’t that where she started? As a “nillity.”
Thank you Anthony – this is one of the most amusing and ‘right on the money’ pieces I have read on your excellent blog (and I have been reading since the sun was young). And there is stiff competition for that accolade, not just from the authors of the blog articles themselves but also from the well-informed ripostes from your well-educated, intelligent and generally likeable contributors to the comments section. It is such an unalloyed pleasure to read WUWT. Rebecca Bright, right? Honestly folks, you really could not make it up.
You mean like the name Lorena “Bobbit?”
BTW Lorena married a Russian. She is now Lorena Kutchacokoff.
Shameful! (And yet hilarious)
I am sitting in a cafe drinking my coffee. When I got to that remark I sprayed coffee all over my phone!
Tom in FL
The Russian spelling of female names wouldn’t permit that: “Kutchacokoff”. It would have to be more like “Tossatcokova”.
I’ve stopped even trying to interact with people who have adopted ‘science’ as a religion. I’ve tried borrowing from Rab C. Nesbitt and asking them if they’ve ever considered letting doubt into their lives but that normally just causes a puzzled expression. Also, hopelessly off topic but I just looked at SKS for the first time in months and the site seems to have attracted less than 100 comments so far in 2018. How much flogging can a dead horse stand?
Gavin
Now there’s a thought. Unleash Rab on the alarmist’s, they wouldny stand a chance. 🙂
They would have trouble understanding what Rab is saying anyway.
Patrick MJD
The alarmist’s have trouble understanding what anyone says, Rab would make a refreshing change.
A beautiful public paddling of a self-inflating ‘social justice warrior’!
Bravo, Sir!
The problem is this woman will learn nothing. That letter will simply bounce off her and her life will go on without a trace of self-doubt. As the expression goes, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
and the more cynical ones of us would add… “and to know where to hide the bodies.”
She clearly didn’t. Her response:
“You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.”
And you see, this is a typical response by someone who was given a polite but pointed set-down and has nothing to say in rebuttal. Her response is NO response.
Sara
What a spiteful little tart she is.
Mike Rowe took the time to compose a reply, to one of many people who watch and possibly object to him, and she doesn’t have the grace to thank him and respond with a respectful reply.
‘Manners maketh the man’. A phrase this ignoramus has never encountered.
and we should expect any difference? I’m at a loss with these types. I could have sworn this was the mother of my child retorting in typical angry child-like newspeak. She doesn’t even realize she just admitted she hasn’t a leg to stand on. Or does she? I think these folks know they were outdueled intellectually and have to resort to logical fallacy, which is consistent with the SJW/modern left crowd these days. How unfortunate.
Her reply just makes very clear something I suspect Mr. Rowe knows only too well — trying to educate the ineducable may well be the dirtiest (and least productive) job of all.