/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6311442
Watch out, we got a bad ass over here.

Jacob Barnett

>>6311453
Beat me to it.

>>6311442

holy shit I fucking hate this condescending faggot. seriously. i want to punch him in the fucking face.

every time i see his arrogant/pseudo intellectual drivel shared by some bitch on facebook or some retarded science page i get mad.

>>6311453
>>6311455

this. there is really nothing I hate more than little kids used for click bait etc, its fucking obnoxious and thats really all he is.

this goofball.

I just really don't like people who spend all their time talking about "the insignificance of the earth and humanity compared to the vastness of the universe" etc etc. we get it. the universe is big. its amazing. etc. It's really obnoxious to talk like humanity doesn't matter. pop-science helps get the public interested in science, but for all the wrong reasons. I hate it and love it at the same time.

Every time I see a friend share a buzzfeed or cracked article about some science topic, I cringe.

>>6311458
I like his talks of keeping evolution in the class rooms and getting more money for NASA. Although, I don't like his "I don't personally believe in God, religion, a higher power or any theism. I'm not an atheist, I'm just agnostic." attitude. I know you're trying to protect your image, but grow some balls Tyson it's 2014.

>>6311488
>grow some balls Tyson it's 2014

I think its the opposite. he's a huge jerkass and it defeats the purpose of popscience

>>6311442

>>6311493
>>6311488
You can't please everyone.

>2014
>Hating pop-sci
It's like you want people to never be interested in science.

>>6311442

I didn't mind Tyson until I read his Twitter. Is he a relation of the Smiths?

>>6311514

id rather have people not be interested in science than have than be interested in pseudoscience and pretentious pseudo intellectualism.

seriously. have you watched anything on the discovery network lately? its all pseudoscience nonsense. dumb brainless, overproduced bullshit crypto zoology and other shit.

It's insulting to anyone actually interested in science, and for people that aren't its as far as they'll ever get. They get used to the flashy, over the top dramatized excitability of pop science and will never do any actual research outside of reading the occasional braindead cracked article because real science is now "boring" to them.

Pop-sci is cancer.

>>6311532
>They get used to the flashy, over the top dramatized excitability of pop science and will never do any actual research outside of reading the occasional braindead cracked article because real science is now "boring" to them.

I wish I could erase cracked and buzzfeed from the face of the internet.

>>6311532
>pseudoscience and pretentious pseudo intellectualism
That isn't popsci. Also, science is a tedious grind. You might as well be able to relate it to something flashy and interesting.

>>6311536
But, I like cracked, I like that it's stupid.

>>6311536
Cracked is relatively well researched for a comedy site. It's not like the average person would have done any science without Cracked.

>>6311548
>>6311543

listverse masterrace.

I don't need brainless, asinine "comedy" to enjoy genuinely interesting topics.

tyson is cool

but kaku...

>>6311563
So much this.
Holy fuck what a moron.

>>6311539
the problem is that people value the sciences based on the flashiness they put forward, and what you end up with is a poor overall cultural appreciation of science. Cute illustrations of the cosmos with quotes from astronomers do little to actually aid science, at least not nearly as much as an honest treatment of science in elementary schools.

>>6311566
>>6311563

i keep seeing this but I don't follow pop-sci

what makes kaku a moron?

>>6311572
He goes around spouting bs such as :
quantum mechanics = u can't know nuffin, our consciousness creates the world cuz if it wasn't for us it would collapse

>>6311576
>our consciousness creates the world cuz if it wasn't for us it would collapse

what kind of asinine drivel....

what the fuck?

>>6311560
Just remind me what's harmful about Cracked, though. They bring some genuinely interesting information to the masses, who would not otherwise be interested. Why is this a bad thing, exactly?

>>6311581

cracked is fucking retarded for all kinds of reasons. mostly their pants on head retarded clickbait articles and their obnoxious amounts of scripts running on every fucking page. the average ignorant redditween that browses cracked is too dumb to know or care about these things. I stopped going to that website a long time ago. what a clusterfuck of idiocy.

Definitely Lawrence Krauss. Total cunt.

>>6311622

>implying him being a complete dick to william craig in the debate wasn't awesome

he's a smart guy and proposes good arguments in debates. that said i think his recent fame has made him more arrogant

>>6311560
listverse is crap

>>6311587
i think he was asking more about the content, and less about your pet peeves

>>6311622
>Lawrence Krauss
I hate that faggot
>>6311636
The content is for retards though. Actual, intellectual articles are infinitely more interesting than reading an article written by Shithead Susan or Freshman Freddy, shitting their pants in an article on deadly insects they didn't know existed.

>>6311642
>The content is for retards though. Actual, intellectual articles are infinitely more interesting than reading an article written by Shithead Susan or Freshman Freddy, shitting their pants in an article on deadly insects they didn't know existed.

this made me laugh my ass off.

>>6311642
>Actual, intellectual articles
Like?

>>6311622
>>6311642
Other than be an asshole, what did Lawrence Krauss do that was so bad?

>>6311642
>Shithead Susan or Freshman Freddy

>>6311704
why is he so popular?

>>6311787
Because he's a good educator, has a original entertaining style and other qualities.

>>6311793

smartereveryday is better

>>6311793
Scishow is better

>>6311797
Smartereveryday is good in its own way

>>6311801
I love scishow, but I feel that vsauce usually has a nice flow from topic-to-topic

Okay so which pop science is your guilty pleasure? What do you consume even though you know it's really oversimplified bullshit produced for idiots?

>>6311642
Cracked has had some hilarious articles, but unfortunately most of them are shitty list-icles that are blatant clickbait. Some of their older stuff that was purely about comedy is good.

>>6311819
Ian Stewart. In one of his books he manages to explain the Hodge conjecture in a way that's not entirely horseshit and is still sort of accessible. I'd say that's pretty impressive.

The guy that replaced Tyson on Nova Science Now is wayyyyy more obnoxious. Tyson I kind of like.

>>6311700

>hating on Copeland

nigga pls

>>6311581
Cracked's had more than one article that incorrectly used statistics to come to their own conclusions, so there's one harmful effect. Another is that they don't always describe scientific stuff they talk about correctly, and often lead people to have misconceptions about science.

For example, I once read an article on there, 3 years ago when I was naive enough to think they were intelligent, that brought up how useful the uberman sleep schedule is, when with the little research that's actually been done into it, shows little hope that it has any utility and actually causes exhaustion in people.

Another time, David Wong, who I believe is the chief editor or some other high position, wrote an article about things you think will make you happy, but won't, and he talked about money. And then he talked about how Nigeria is allegedly the happiest country in the world. But if you clicked on the source for that claim, it merely said Nigeria had the highest increase in their people's perception of their lives, but no indication that they were the happiest people. So there's a misrepresentation of statistics.

Now, I don't think I could give any recent examples, since I make sure to steer clear of that website, but I'm also pretty certain those articles were never retracted or anything said to indicate they were less than accurate, especially having gone on their forums and seeing the personalities of the people who run that website. And I'm certain things like this still happen now. So that's why they're dangerous.

>>6311470

>I just really don't like people who spend all their time talking about "the insignificance of the earth and humanity compared to the vastness of the universe" etc etc. we get it. the universe is big. its amazing

Except he was one of the first to do that1

That science guy Bill Nye

>>6311819
veritasium is great

>>6312492
how does this make him an exception

This Faggot, prof Richard Fucking Dawkins

>>6311700
Ahah do you even know what he does? Have you ever read any of his publications? I guess not.
>pls

>>6312567
I'm curious, why?

>>6311700
holy fuck his head looks like an egg

>>6312567
Why are you mad? I'm guessing you are basing this on The God Delusion? I wouldn't even call him pop science. If you read the selfish gene as a complete idiot to biology, you would be extremely confused. That book is pretty deep and well written. You would have to have a good degree of biology knowledge to truly enjoy and get something out of it. I think he tried to make it accessible for everyone but maybe he forgot the public education we get in America.

>>6312592
>>6312595
>All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
>— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins)

or that interview where he was getting mad at audience for laughing
>WHATS FUNNY
>WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING
>SERIOUSLY WHAT'S FUNNY

gee calm down faggot

>>6312599
so you just think he's arrogant?
he's just a posh englishman, with a short fuse for stupidity.

>>6312602
i think he's nothing special in neither of the knowledge department nor the intelligence one

>>6312595
I read The Selfish Gene at the age of 16 and didn't have a problem with understanding it. Well of course the fact that I am not 'Murican may have something to do with it...

>>6312611
is there any reason to read the selfish gene over origin of the species, adaptation and natural selection, or any other famous evolution book?

>>6312613
First I read Sophies World in school which had was a chapter about Darwin and evolution. I found evolution interesting I decided to read Origin of species during summer holiday and after that I saw the selfish gene in libary and read that too

>>6312492
No. von Braun was. And, in a rudimentary way, even ancient Greeks and Romans were quite well aware of insignificance of human existence compared to the Universe (Stoic philosophers, for example). Not to mention various eastern philosophies/religions where contemplation of nothingness and insignificance of an individual was always very important (guess who introduced the zero?)

I completely agree that Sagan is overrated as hell. And his narration isn't even that good.

>>6311539
Fuck off. Popsci is what is popular among the masses and claims to be somehow connected to science.

There is no authority anywhere that regulates the use of the term popsci.

>>6312618
>First I read Sophies World in school which had was a chapter about Darwin and evolution.
dang are you me

> Tyson
He's fucking cool as shit. The problem with his way of popularizing science is that he barely touches anything significant and basically runs on fun facts alone. Apart from that he's very passionate about the whole thing and you can feel it. It's a good thing.

> Dawkins
His strictly-scientific days ended 30 years ago and now he seems to be focused strictly on destroying religion as opposed to popularizing science so I don't think he belongs in this thread. Still, he's a legit scientist and /sci/ would do good to remember this.

> Krauss
His delivery might not be the best (i.e. he seems to be a massive douchebag) but he's a serious physicist with some serious contributions to the field. He also bashes string theory every time he speaks, which is a good thing.

> Greene
I doubt he's a legit contributor to the field of astrophysics (he's into string theory after all) but the way he's able to actually convey knowledge is unparalleled. I think his books are even more exciting to read than some of Dawkins' books, which says a lot considering Dawkins singlehandedly revolutionized the way people write about science. And for that Greene has my respect - he can explain a lot of difficult concepts in an entertaining way.

> Kaku
I don't really like him. It's a good thing he's out there cause talking about science is better than nothing, it's just that even some of his more semi-sensible talks are riddled with nonsense about fusion, string theory and FTL travel.

> Barnett
He's not a "popularizer of science". He's a kid exploited by his parents. He does not belong in this thread.

>>6312774
I agree with everything in this post

>>6312774
>I doubt he's a legit contributor to the field of astrophysics (he's into string theory after all)
2edgy4me

>>6312800
What's edgy about hating on string theory?

>>6312800
Do you find not believing in unproven bullshit edgy ? I don't believe in santa too so I bet I'm real edgy right now.

>>6312803
because hating something when you have no idea what its about is edgy.

>>6312804
you really don't understand what string theory is about do you? you act as if string theory hast produced actual results, such as abilities to calculate QCD amplitudes which are impossible with normal QFT methods.

>>6312814
Pinker is great.
The Blank Slate (or whatever its called) is a modern masterpiece.
Probably the most important sociobiologist-type since E O Wilson.

He can also get away with lots of politically incorrect research involving race, because he's a kike.

Dawkins trolling of Islam is brilliant.

inb4 >Edgey

The idea of an old, eloquent, gentleman sitting at his office desk, excitedly tweeting a quick statement that will upset millions of muslim zealots, is just hilarious.

>>6312500
Saw a clip of him on youtube.

He was way more edgey than Dawkins&co.
He didn't seem particularly well spoken, either.

>>6312846
I thought it was great. I actually have yet to see a clip of Bill Nye that disappoints me... but then again I am a huge fan

>>6312839
>He can also get away with lots of politically incorrect research involving race, because he's a kike.

And yet he does his best to give it a PC, Cathedral-approved spin, every time.

>>6312608
I don't think he disagrees.
He's not arrogant, exactly, he just expects other people to be *AS* smart as he is, or smarter. He doesn't want to use emotional reasoning. He isn't going to LIE to you just because it'd be the nice thing to do.

>>6312849
Well, in the grand scheme it seems that he's still on the side of the facts.

If you read some evolutionary psychology textbooks, you see his name get referenced quite a few times, as well, so he's at least made some contributions, too.

also
>that feminine voice
Hnnnnng

>>6312842
This actually is pretty true.

The fact that nearly everyone hates Dawkins, even people who agree with him, only makes me like him more.

>>6312595
>>6312580
>ornithologist becomes the voice of anti-religion
>is bad at being a philosopher and a politician
>>makes atheists look like edgy fucks

>>6312846
To be honest, this.

I WANT to like Bill Nye, but I dunno. He's not that well spoken and he's a bit offensive. I agree with him still, but I think he could word things better and with more compassion.

>>6312860

>Evo Psych (tm)
>facts

>>6312863

>ornithologist

>>6312864

He always seemed like he was riding the coattails of popular anti-religious sentiment to me, and CTF is/was shit.

>>6312833
6/10, pretty subtle.

>>6312842
Dawkins is as fucking bad as those religious zealots.

Seriously, go check his twitter, he basically devoted his life to religion bashing and claiming " HURR DURR IF YER ATHEIST AND HATE GOD YOURE A SMART SCIENTIFIC PERSON DURR ".

He's what you call an atheist zealot, yes that fucking exists.

Anyway Dawkins is a worthless piece of shit right now and an insult to all atheists who hate hostility and see it as something only religious people have. They should hang that retard alongside with that Saudi cunt king.

>>6312867
>>Evo Psych (tm)
>>facts

It's a legitimate field.
Or does evolution stop at the brain?

In fact, one of the gratifying things about Evolutionary Psychology books is that they sometimes deal specifically with the nonsense of Freud&co.

>>6312876

Please describe a standard experiment in Evolutionary Psychology.

>>6312869
Dawkins isnt a good atheist philosopher, no doubt, but he's certainly on the right side of things.

And besides, it's better to have Dawkins than yet another public intellectual who's too terrified to insult nonWestern cultures.
The best thing about him is that he isn't a coward. You can find some rather politically incorrect statements from Dawkins that his reddit fanboys prefer to ignore.

>>6312871
10/10
not a shitpost at all

>>6312885
Try Greenberg's 1979 Bee study published in Science on kin selection.
It's a classic in t he field.

>>6312869
dawkins is a necessary evil

>>6312893
Him not being a coward doesn't make him any better. He's an asshole like those other religious zealots. Sure, tell me what retard says what he believes in is peaceful while insulting other cultures? Doesn't that make him a hypocrite?

Plus he's kinda the leader of the anti-religious mouvement and he just gives it a bad name making himself as bad as the cause he's fighting against. His fanboys can eat shit.

He can continue bashing religious and keep feeding his fedora-wearing, neckbearded atheist fanboys but to think of him as a rational or good person is completely fucking wrong.

>>6312774
I take it you don't care much for string theory.

>checking out "the four horsemen"
>all studied at harvard/oxford/standford
>most of the people mentioned itt studied at an elite uni
is this a prerequisite for being a famous scientist?

>>6312599
Could you link me to that interview? I want to see it. Thanks.

>>6312936
yes, since no one from a non-elite university has (or ever will) do anything significant. common universities are just good of you just want an average job and don't care if you don't do anything groundbreaking.

>>6312904

Great, now post one that actually involves human evolution, seeing as Pinker makes speculative claims about how we evolved and you think evo psych (tm) has any sort of validity.

This guy

or actually, for some weird reason, I like him really mutch

Guess I am just too edgy

>>6312961
Okay, the correlation between altruism and phenotypic similarity, for example.

>>6312954
He's talking about that one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA

>>6312994
Oh yeah. Delusional people laughing at the sane person. Scary...

>>6312923
>Sure, tell me what retard says what he believes in is peaceful while insulting other cultures? Doesn't that make him a hypocrite?

Islam is not a peaceful culture, so insulting it is peaceful.

I'm sorry he hurt your feelings, but somebody has to tell it like it is.

http://youtu.be/5of4A7DGQvw

kek

>>6312999
Dawkins is a faggot but I love how he speaks and his voice

is dawkins super rich?

>>6311442
Tyson
Kaku
Sagan

Top 3

>>6313015
what's wrong with kaku?

>>6313018
He's a chink

>>6313033

But he's not Chinese

>>6313034
... You've seen him, right?

>>6313018
>kaku
jelly

>>6313037

He's Japanese.

>>6311442

Steven Hawking

The guy would have been a fucking average uni proffessor at best if he wasn't a fucking cyborg.

He is fucking praised by everyone, while his work is basically science fiction.

>>6312999
>http://youtu.be/5of4A7DGQvw
Poor Richard.

>>6312999
holy shit that autism
what's so fucking hard about giving his definition for success

>>6313051
>tfw he teaches at my school

>>6313129
What makes you qualified to comment on research that is completely beyond your ability to comprehend? Stephen Hawking is one of the world's top physicists regardless of his disability.

>>6313129
have you even ever read his papers?

>>6313129
Sunday is pleb day on /sci/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZiWKmhuaZE&list=PLKUY5-hHCOOVcEMz5m5aubAykvrLKQGxG

Bill Nye, by far.

So how intelligent actually are these guys (Kaku, Tyson, Sagan, Nye)? They never really reveal their power levels to the plebs

>>6313255

You can look up their credentials to get a good idea. Some of them are actual scientists, whereas Nye, on the other hand, basically got his start in pleb tier showbiz and only teaches entry level science.

>>6313215
that was a waste of everyone's time

>>6311442
Anything and everything that is mathematics can be proven wrong with this alone.
"(10.0.01)"

(Evidence to support claim:
(1,100,100.01,001,1
One million one hundred thousand one hundred and one millionth one hundredth thousandth one hundredth))
(Math can never be correct if numbers lean towards greater, rather than lesser.
(10.01)
((Ten is greater than tenth if tenth is ten.
Tenth is lesser than ten if tenth is ten.))

(The reason you and I don't understand the statement above is because we use math to understand everything. (If the statement above is not true, why don't we know why? (If the the above statement is true, why don't we know why?))))
Incorrect is a state, just like correct is a state.

((Everything can be placed in one correct order), and everything can be place in one incorrect order.) ((In this sense, there are two 100% correct paths to being 100% incorrect), or two 100% incorrect paths to being 100% correct,) (which both lead you to one (equal opposite path, which never repeats, or unwinds. ))

>>6313286
is that scheme

V.S. Ramachandran.

All of his books are rehashes. He also spreads poorly researched claims, such as those involving mirror neurons (which are very controversial) and extreme functional localization. Read the comments section here:

http://thefprorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/karereview-of-ramachandrans-the-tell-tale-brain-a-neuroscientists-quest-for-what-makes-us-human/

He's still better than annoying, pretentious asshats like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Neil deGreysse

>>6311442
tyson ties on the bells and whistles and does his job in keeping people interested in the subject, he's alright
>>6311700
how do you hate this guy? i'm pretty sure it's actually impossible
>>6312567
he seems like a smart guy but i've tried to watch some videos of him and i seem to fall asleep whenever his face turnzzZZzzZZzz...

>>6313337
epic dresden codak reference :^)

>>6313350
which part?

bumb

>>6311700
AHAHAHAHAHA

Man who has, on numerous occasions, published papers with a man who discovered the Higgs mechanism. And you call him pop-sci.

>>6313350
drisden codak did not come up with it you shithead. its a joke older than the internet.

>>6312839
Pinker is pop sci. He has not actually done any primary research on all the nativist stuff he's talking about beyond language.
His claims regarding language learning are to be taken serious (although the emergentist neural network guys will in the end win, everyone knows that), but he has zero credibility regarding anything else.

>>6313290
>mirror neurons (which are very controversial)
The existence of neurons exhibiting the behaviour we assign to mirror neurons is not in doubt.

Surprised Sam Harris hasn't been mentioned.

From what I've gathered in my time here, /sci/ hates popsci for two reasons

One, it's part of 4chan culture to be counter-culture, against the grain, hipster-esque anti-mainstream that results in inside jokes and hatred of mainstream media in all it's forms.

Building on this hipsterism, anything that isn't spending 12 hours a day in the lab or crunching numbers that most people wouldn't even begin to think of, then "it isn't real science you fucking plebeian just kill yourself already". Just as /mu/ hates casual listeners /sci/ hates casual followers of the latest scientific developments. If you want to learn anything with physics then you need to get your ass into college and spend 8 or more years studying it, or else you're an idiot with an IQ below 150 (which is below average, of course)

I think there can also be a bit of jealousy involved, though I don't really want to stress this point and I think it is easily justified. When people think "scientist" they often think of popsci figures, not the researchers that grind countless hours figuring things out. If you're one of said grinders, it can be hard to see someone who doesn't put the amount of work that you put into the field get most of the recognition.

>>6315134
>I think there can also be a bit of jealousy involved, though I don't really want to stress this point and I think it is easily justified. When people think "scientist" they often think of popsci figures, not the researchers that grind countless hours figuring things out. If you're one of said grinders, it can be hard to see someone who doesn't put the amount of work that you put into the field get most of the recognition.

ding ding

>>6315134
>If you want to learn anything with physics then you need to get your ass into college and spend 8 or more years studying it, or else you're an idiot with an IQ below 150 (which is below average, of course)
but this is true. at least if you replace "learn anything with physics" with "understand the development of ideas and not just feel smart for gazing at the results of study other people have done like a painting on a museum wall"

The entire Numberphile youtube channel.

Fuck those guys and their lazy as fuck proofing.

>>6315172
The funny thing is, there's maybe a handful of people like that on 4chan, yet hundreds if not thousands still preach this shit...

>>6315105
He's not a popularizer of science, he doesn't belong in this thread.

>>6315134
This man speaks the truth.

People hating on popsci do so mainly because they think it's edgy, cool and somehow puts them above the masses.

>>6315205
He's talking to public, non-academic audiences about how neuroscience can prove quasi-objective morals a lot.

>>6315219
He holds a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience, I think he's entitled to talk to the public on that topic

>>6315199
but people on 4chan are more likely to admit they're just people that enjoy paintings and probably spend at least some time reading about different art styles instead of standing in front of the mona lisa chin in hand pretending to be deep in thought

>pic related from an article titled "Futurist Ray Kurzweil isn't Worried about Climate Change"
FUCKING KURZWEIL

>>6315134
>>6315168
>>6315172
>>6315216
no you fucking idiots its because pop scientists are by definition celebrities that comment on popular issues

they act as political pundits and lie about scientific controversies in the guise of apolitical "technocratic" spokespersons

this is really basic shit if you're not an idiot

>>6315300
like do you seriously think that evolutionary psychologist #527 was selected for by the mainstream media because he's going to present a complete and nuanced opinion of the state of the field, or because he has something punchy to say that people would want to hear?

this is obvious

I guess I'll always like Nye since I grew up watching his videos in school and he definitely gave me a shove in the direction of science. I haven't seen anything recent but why is he disliked now?

Also I think Sagan does a good job conveying the fact that humans are not the center of universe. I know he did science but he seems more like a philosopher scientist mix which isn't inherently bad. He was also pretty elegant and easy to listen to. I mean didn't he contribute a fair bit to astronomy?

>>6315308
bill did actual experiments to demonstrate science to children. i dont see who could have a problem with that

>>6315315
Apparently people like this faggot here:
>>6315300

>hating the popularization of science

then you bitch and whine when you pet project has no monies because the people in charge of the purse dont give two shits about science.

>>6315134

The comparison with /mu/ shows that you don't even have the analogy skills to be on this board.

The problem with /mu/ hating casual listeners is that there's no inherent problem in listening to mainstream music. It doesn't hurt anyone so they are just being pretentious asses.

While annoying, the problem with pop-sci isn't that hipsters want to follow mainstream science to look informed in front of a gullible audience. The problem is that science can be valid or invalid objectively unlike music or film or whatever hobby you're into.

Hipsters who like pop-sci just want to absorb enough to make them look deep rather than gain a critical insight into any field. So in trying to look deep, these people latch on to the field with the most emotionally-charged diction because appealing to logic certainly isn't going to work for them. This flood of hipsters into these fields causes a disproportionate amount of coverage for select areas of science -- from overly-grandiose astrophysics to full-retard quantum consciousness shit, leading to the propagation of terrible misconceptions about how these things work.

Gaining scientific knowledge isn't a choice between watching a TV show or spending hours in a lab every day. There are tons of resources for the layman on the internet and in bookstores if someone actually is interesting in learning.

>>6315251
>He holds a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience, I think he's entitled to talk to the public on that topic
Richard Dawkins was a Professor of Zoology at UCD Berkley and a Professor at Oxford. Sam Harris holds a PhD and has like 2 publications to his credit. If Harris is allowed to represent science because of these credentials, Dawkins is, too.

>>6315406
once you accept that science like all things is political you can start to say things like nye and sagan (and mr rogers) have good politics and kurzweil and dawkins have bad politics there subjectivism it's not that hard

>>6315468
I never said Dawkins is not allowed to represent science. I enjoy Dawkins writing and I like that there are people like him out there - he's a legit scientist with serious contributions to his field.

>>6315456
> if someone actually is interested in learning.

That's the major problem and that's exactly why we need popsci. Not to teach science but to show people that science can be interesting and actually direct them to some serious publications.

>>6315273
>I'm going to live forever by eating pills
SURE THING MATEY.

>>6315531
So why is Dawkins hated ITT, but Harris isn't?

>>6315550
Because Dawkins is way more popular and that's the easiest way to make enemies.

Also, you're on /sci/ for fucks sake. It's a lair full of NEETs that will claim EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is retarded. /sci/tizens bash Einstein and Newton a hundred times per hour, are you seriously surprised they bash Dawkins as well?

Wait till Harris gets more popular and you'll see around here a million threads with his picture and an opening post that goes "why do people listen to this idiot?"

>>6315550
Because Harris isn't even a scientist. He's a shitty philosopher.

>>6315595
He never talks about neuroscience. All he talks about is philosophy.

>>6315569
see: >>6315251

>>6315599
He talks about a neuroscientific foundation of moral all the time.

>>6315610
there is no objective foundation for morality. the people that claim there are are making metaphysical claims. science is not relevant until you have an axiom making it relevant.

>>6315666
Regardless of what may be true or not, Harris is talking about a neuroscientific foundation of moral.

Anyone who talks about quantum physics. People tend to communicate it as if it's magic, which leads to bizarre quantum physics woo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU

>>6315679
>sixty symbols
I love those channels, they actually manage to communicate without dumbing down.
I quite like brian cox too, though sometimes gets dangerously close to cosmology.

>>6315676
he's not talking about a neuroscientific foundation of morality. he's assuming morality exists and is related to neuroscience in some specific way. the point is it's not foundational and it can't be

>>6315686
You're wrong. You're not listening to him. He is not making metaphysical claims, he's investigating the neurological basis of a moral sense, and he's arguing that we all share some moral axioms, whose brain signatures he can demonstrate. Why are you talking about what you haven't even heard about before?

>>6315679
>Anyone who talks about quantum physics. People tend to communicate it as if it's magic, which leads to bizarre quantum physics woo.
Incidentally, Sam Harris does a nice take-down of that here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09UmufmfSLc

>>6315737
I hate Chopra so fucking much and the way Harris crushes his pseudo-intellectual bullshit makes me respect the man even more.

Also, lel at the way Harris looks at Chopra while the latter rants about quantum physics being spiritual at 2:20.

bumb

>>6312544
Because he did it before it became obnoxious.

>>6312863
So much this. Dawkins is a fucking Biologists who studies fucking animals. An animal lover basically, not a scientist or mathematician.

This is the voice of "science and reason"? Seriously, what the actual fuck?

>>6311793
0/10

>>6311532
If it were not for popsci, I wouldn't have decided to go into Mech E. with a minors in physics with the long-term goal of going back for a doctorate in physics

> Richard Dawkins: "Evolution is true and if you don't believe in it you are insane."
Hitler: ''Right on! Therefore let's kill all the Jews."

>>6317369
This is what catholics actually believe.

>>6317066
Darwin was basically an animal lover.

>>6312863
Arguably, you don't need to be a GOOD philosopher to absolutely destroy fundamentalist christian ideology.

>>6317396
>you don't need to be a GOOD philosopher to absolutely destroy fundamentalist christian ideology.
You've never taken a theology class, have you? They take their shit seriously.

>>6317400
Good theologians, yes. (I've indeed listened to lectures and taken classes.)

But the US hard right is awful at theology.

Morgan Freeman.

I find it amazing that people actually bash Dawkins as a popularizer of science. He himself has been bashing pop-sci ever since he first got on stage, I thought /sci/tizens would find it encouraging.

Dawkins at the "Storytelling Of Science" at the Great Debate series in early 2013 said, right after Neil SmokeTheGrass Tyson stated that science is "fun":
> "I think that fun and entertainment (in science) are overrated. Science is hard, but it's worth it. It's fascinating, it's enthralling, but if we only talk about the bits that are fun, that make bangs and smells and things then we don't do science justice. We use the phrase 'dumbing down' and we mustn't do that."

>>6317419
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6hxo1sC-dU

>>6311442
I disliked Tyson too, at first. But after reading some of his books, the dude honestly knows what he's talking about so he kind of grew on me. In terms of pop-sci his stuff is more mathematical than most. He's got a great chapter in Death by Blackhole where he shows just how much information you can figure out about the world using only a stick. It's a chapter that really...sticks...with you.

Kaku I also really disliked because I read his Physics of the Future and determined he was a fucking hack. But going back to Hyperspace, again, he grew on me because his concepts were a little less filtered for idiots at that point...

Hawking was the same way. A Brief History of Time is amazing but The Grand Design is pretty shit tier.

Honestly, most of these guys are okay, just don't read their newer stuff. They're pandering more and more to jackasses.

>>6317404
>But the US hard right is awful at theology.
so is the US left

>>6315315
>>6315308

And if he stayed doing that he wouldn't have people hating on him. But he stopped and decided to become a political lobbyist.

>>6317426
I love it.

Also related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fh_liyhIH8

>>6317426
>>6317454
Oh thats real mature. Is this what scientists like ? cursing like a 12 year old ?

> believing in science
> not even once

>>6317461
> this mad

>>6317419
what's up with the 'growing up in the universe' lectures he did when he was younger then

>>6317466
And instead of accepting his childish behaviour, you resort to 'umad'. Well that was...pathetically cliche

>>6317461
>Scientists can never use bad words.

It's a word, get the fuck over it.

>>6317581
Do not feed the troll.

You cant name a greater faggot

>>6317681
>You cant name a greater faggot

Wanna bet, fаggоt?

>>6317581
you must be the coolest kid in your highschool

>>6317681
I don't even know who that is.

So much for "popular".

>>6317693
at least his videos doesn't show his face all the time. ANd he isn't austrailian.

>>6317698
check veritasium on jewtube

>>6317693
is he really a pedophile ?

>>6317693
Vsauce is a modern Bill Nye.

>>6317711
>Vsauce
do they still make playlists? Those were a bit fun

>>6315273
>be me @ internet caffe today
>see a chap reading a .pdf about intelligence
>go near him and ask him whats the books name
>ITS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE
>okeydokey.jpg
>who is the writer
>RAY KRZWEIL
>bye.giff

he is an idiot

>>6317711
>Vsauce is a modern Bill Nye.

stfu. vsauce is some social media shithead who decided to start a channel summarizing popular blogs so he could SEO his pages.

guy has a fucking high school diploma!

all he does is steal content from other websites and just summarizes them in a really shitty way.

people who watch Vsauce are fucking idiots.

and yes, he's the greatest fаggоt named so far in this thread.

at least other personalities have SOME science background and interest in it that goes beyond a fucking dollar.

>>6311571
People want to be told something and be amazed then forget about it and move on to the next piece of meaningless entertainment, they don't want to have to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Does Youtube PopSci count? If so, I really don't like minutephysics.

>>6317972
>minutephysics

vsauce, veritasium, minutephysics all fucking suck. they're just uneducated attention whores.

I really hate hearing Kaku's. He actually made some important contributions to string theory and QFT, but when he talks to a pop-sci audience, half of what comes out of his mouth is bullshit and the other half is oversimplified analogies.

I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't so many internet physicists and new-age/religious pseudo-intellectuals out there who watch a Michio Kaku documentary and suddenly think they're experts on quantum mechanics and modern physics. Also, his voice and the way he talks is really annoying.

>Dawkins hate
Am I the only one likes this guy? Its refreshing to see some "edginess" come from the secular/humanist. Most tend to be apologetic about it until relatively recently. Sure he might go to far when he says religion is child abuse, but hes quite mild compared to even the average outspoken Christian, who might come off as all loving and peaceful but believes some pretty nasty stuff when you get down to it. Same goes from his reddit legions, I'd rather be with the most Euphoric teen than most bible thumping Christians. In the grand scheme of thing they actually are a tiny and quite mild.

I'm mean it not like they are threatening people with eternal torture or having angry mobs because someone drew Darwin.

>>6312869
Leaving harmful, objectively incorrect ideas, unchallenged isn't the the moral fucking highground.

>"evil prevails when good men fails to act"

>>6318059
I mainly like the fact that he uses his persona to help propagate injustices around the world, especially with atheist and humanist groups in extremely conservative countries. Pakistani Atheists, for example, which represents a population that can be legally punished because they've left their religion.

Sometimes I think he unreasonably stirs of flames, but I think overall he's had a positive effect.

>>6312849

No Nick Land, you are the visual-anthro multi-slotted reality systems.

And then Nick Land was a last man.

>>6317066
>people who love animals are not real scientists
>biologists are not real scientists

I pity a world that is based solely on physics and mathematics and not the various other disciplines of science such as biology or chemistry.

>>6311519
how does that even make sense? if matter (IE stars) are made up of a metric fuck ton of atoms, how can there be more stars than atoms

>>6318315

Because atoms are just a single set of quantum effects whereas stars are a set of classical effects AND a set of quantum effects with their synthesis compromising an additional set. You'd understand this if you understood Category theory and studied Baryon symmetry.

>>6318249
>>6317066
>implying biologists must love animals
>implying being an animal lover and being a scientist are mutually exclusie

>>6318338
go to bed Kaku

>>6311488
me too. It's the most pussy thing ever. why the fuck is agnostic even considered an alternative? I don't see how you dont either believe or not believe.

>>6312869
>Dawkins is as fucking bad as those religious zealots.
>Dawkins is as bad as those people who would seriously be okay with hurting others who they perceive go against their religion
>Dawkins and his followers have inspired thousands of terrorists and suicide bombers world wide
lel