More about science …
Neal deGrasse Tyson’s Mind soared in the Cosmos among the Stars!
But his show has been cancelled!
It may have appeared to be in the Cosmos!
But actually it seems it was maybe just in the Gutter!
Yeah, his head was in the stars but his hands were elsewhere,
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a way it’s scary to think that a person’s entire life and accomplishments may be trashed by some indiscretion years ago that was not as serious a thing then as it is now. Sorta like how we’re expected to pay for the now-sins of Southern slave owners (the Northern slave owners seem to be getting a bye) even if our progenitors weren’t in the country at the time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right! But I don’t believe there were Republican Slave Owners!
Look it up! In fact, up until the 1960s, the KKK was generally the military arm of the Democratic Party!
And at one time my home state of Connecticut had more slaves than any other. Even after slavery in the North was all over just before 1850 the North still had a lot of laws limiting black activities.
Well, since the Republican Party came to be to oppose the Kansas/Nebraska Act (allowing slavery in the territories), I’m sure that is true!
Aw come on, you knew this one was gonna be posted:
I think we’re awed by the level of intelligence they have and automatically believe it carries over to other areas of their lives. Were that the case then those of us who manage to think and do our ways thru daily life would be building rockets, no?
Stella, this one confused me. They covered so many subjects, jumping from science to philosophy to religion, to whatever entered their head.
Whittle finally returned them to the topic of science, but…gee wiz, Whittle claiming more “insight” for having scientific understanding and experience was off-putting to me (heard that way too often in my life).
All that said, these guys were truly entertaining. Not certain what to think, but they certainly set one to thinking about a whole range of subjects, which made it all worth the confusion.
Thanks for the vid. Bill Whittle is always a must-listen, no matter the subject. Hard to argue with reason and humor
Science is a very valuable tool, especially double blind research studies where neither the subject/object being studied nor the studier knows which category that/whom they observe falls into. This method should theoretically remove at least some of the bias in results that personal opinions might inadvertently contaminate.
But take the arena of Creation Science where secular scientists refuse to even consider the possibility that God exists or had any role to play. At least the Intelligence Design theory allows for the possibility of some outside agency, be it God or extremely intelligent aliens, to have had a part to play in earth’s origins.
It seems that if you attempt to scientifically analyze a topic if you absolutely don’t consider at least the Possibility that God (or some outside our comprehension external intelligent force) exists than you cannot adequately evaluate the data for “all” possibilities. What if the answer to any given scientific question is ultimately a door marked “God” but the scientist, who refuses to consider’s God’s existence let alone His actions, cannot see that door? That would mean that if the ultimate answer to a question is “God” such a scientist could never arrive at a real answer…hmm…
Also scientists seem to be stuck in the arena of the physical, to some degree. So they often only consider the tangibles of an equation. But there are often intangibles that come in to play. If they cannot be readily measured or quantified then some aspects of science leave their influence outside the equation. This ultimately means that their equation will invariably be inadequate to explain “all” aspects of a particular topic being studied.
If humans are body, mind, soul, & spirit where do the hard & fast lines between these domains lie? These arenas interact & interface with each other internally & externally with others. Even if we only examine one individual that person is not static through time. How can we “scientifically” ever say that we truly “know” anything with “complete” certainty at all? It seems that every conclusion would need to be couched in such various amounts of backpedaling that at best we could estimate a percentage of degree of confidence of a “result”. Duplicating a study “exactly” & either getting slightly different results or slightly different degrees of estimated “certainty” (already an oxymoron) means that we cannot “know” anything completely using science alone…
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.