[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 29 KB, 844x352, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3125963 No.3125963 [Reply] [Original]

DeGrasse Tyson getting his ass handed to him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fog4nfTYirQ#t=17m20s

>> No.3126511

Bamp!

>> No.3126510

I don't get it...

>> No.3126524

I watched it for a few minutes, and I have no idea what that guy wants.

>> No.3126532

>>3125963

buttt he's the best scientist in the world


don't like the scruffy douche either

>> No.3126537

>>3126524

Life doesn't incorporate heavy stuff like radium or iron...

I thought we did have iron and all sorts of weird shit in our make-up?

>> No.3126548

>>3126537
Yeah we have plenty of iron in us. Key component (we call it heme) of the hemoglobin enzyme.

>> No.3126574

The point? Attacking science that is dumbed down for the layman?

>> No.3126581

I don't really get what he's arguing for.

>> No.3126583

Muted it and was hypnotized by the wasps.

>> No.3126586

Yeah, not really.
2/10

>> No.3126628

>>3126586
Yeah, absolutely.

>> No.3126631

>attacking a guy who educates the public about science
>implying a bad thing

>> No.3126644

Is that the same guy who used to do back-and-forths with the Amazing Atheist while wearing a Batman costume?

>> No.3126645

>>3126631
>educates by making false assumptions
>good thing

>> No.3126667

I watched the first 10 minutes. I am not wasting more time on this shit, he's throwing opinion after opinion out and just continuing to complain about everything, giving examples that are non-applicable "The story should be, like Nasa found this new form of life that runs on different DNA!" for example.

It's just some crazy guy ranting. 1/10, made me waste 10 minutes.

>> No.3126680
File: 14 KB, 294x293, 1305133982869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126680

>argue that the reason life on earth is made of the most common elements is that heavier elements wouldn't produce viable biochemistry
>that doesn't contradict what Tyson said
>argue that it doesn't matter what the elemental distribution is, only the distribution of biochemistry
>following his first argument, you can't have viable biochemistry without the proper elements
>the proper element distribution that allows for viable biochemistry would certainly be an important factor in looking for life
>mfw he agrees with Tyson but he just wants to argue with an authority figure on the internet in order to appear intelligent

>> No.3126690

The hobo totally misses the point, tyson just argues that because we are made of common stuff the idea that somewhere else life developed isn't too far-fetched. At least the wasps were interesting to watch.

>> No.3126697

>>3126690
>isn't too far fetched

Idiot detected.

>> No.3126701

>mfw Tyson's books (as well as Hawking's) were what originally what got me interested in science

Go ahead, you can laugh.

>> No.3126718

>>3126697
Some dayum fine arguments you are presenting.

>> No.3126715

check out this guy's other videos

what a nutcase

>> No.3126722

>>3126537
he meant it as a key ingredient

>> No.3126723

>>3126628
Care to explain? I don't see the problem here. The guy in the video is just rambling. He clearly doesn't know what some of the words he's using mean. Also,
>baseless assertions, baseless assertions everywhere
>>3126645
>false assumtpions
[citation needed]

I wouldn't be surprised if either of these posts were made by the video's creator, exact same behavior.

>> No.3126739

>>3126718
>not far fetched

"Explain to me how probability math allows you to draw these kind of conclusions from one sample. One sample from a planet where we have 4 billion years of evolution...where we have no evidence of competing life ever forming."

>> No.3126742

>>3126690
>because we are made of common stuff the idea that somewhere else life developed isn't too far-fetched.
But you still don't know what the odds are at all.

>> No.3126761
File: 15 KB, 253x195, 1306263897996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126761

>>3126722
>implying care

>> No.3126762

>>3126723
>not false assumptions
see
>>3126739

Got quiet in the thread all the sudden, truth hurts huh butthurt man?

>> No.3126770

>>3126723
what are you talking about? the guy is a nutjob who has no idea what he says means.

>> No.3126773

>>3126739
We have found one planet that didn't appear to have a problem creating a million different variations of life.

We have yet to find another planet, with similar environmental conditions that DOESN'T harbour life.

Yeah, you're wrong.

>> No.3126780

>>3126770
Do you find any logical fallacy in that post >>3126739

>> No.3126779

>>3126770
>something flys over my head
>the guy is a nutjob!

If you are done with petty nonsense, explain the probability math for the possibility of alien life when all you have is a single sample.

>> No.3126784

>>3126739
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Remember, no one said anything about evidence. Evidence and estimation are different things.

>> No.3126785

Hahah, I love Gary.

>> No.3126787
File: 42 KB, 360x240, facepalm_picard2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126787

>>3126773

>> No.3126790

Ok, I decided to give it a second chance after closing it and listened a few more minutes hoping he would start to make some sense, but no such thing happened.

He resorts to ad hominem attacks and, in some cases, straight up lies. His arguments aren't using logic or any form of coherent reasoning that I can see. He's either very dimwitted and outspoken, or he just wants the controversy/attention.


>>3126739
>Explain to me how probability math allows you to draw these kind of conclusions from one sample.
Looks like he doesn't understand probability, so I guess this statement wasn't rhetoric, it was more of a plea, a cry for help.
>where we have no evidence of competing life ever forming.
looks like he doesn't know biological history either
>>3126742
>at all
Drake equation is a pretty strong start.
Don't use absolutes if you don't mean it, they make you look foolish.

>> No.3126793

>>3126784
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp8D7b3HUuI

>> No.3126797

>youtube/internet celebrity known for arguing with everyone does what he does best
>A guy who spends all day thinking about cosmology
>The professional has no idea what he's talking about

The only reason people rally against Tyson is that he's popular and they think they're underground geniuses. There are plenty of avenues to take to challenge Tyson. You can call up his radio show, send him an email, etc. Or you can be a little girl and make a video for your fangirls so you won't have to face the challenge of debate.

>> No.3126800

>>3126790
Yup you're a retard. It's you who doesn't understand probability if you support the claim that's it's probable there is alien life by only having a single sample as a source in 4 billion years of evolution.

>BUT SPACE IS SO BIG THERE'S GOTTA BE DERP

doesn't cut it kiddo.

>looks like he doesn't know biological history either

Troll?

>> No.3126807

>>3126797
>he thinks Gary wouldn't debate Tyson anywhere any time

LOL

>> No.3126810
File: 4 KB, 126x102, 1299375161575s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126810

Hobo-man completely misses the point Tyson is trying to make.
He also seems to be a self-qualified expert on everything in the Universe, seeing how he knows it would be impossible for life to form out of heavier elements.

>> No.3126817

>>3126790
>>Explain to me how probability math allows you to draw these kind of conclusions from one sample.
>Looks like he doesn't understand probability, so I guess this statement wasn't rhetoric, it was more of a plea, a cry for help.
how can you make an accurate guess with only one sample?
>>where we have no evidence of competing life ever forming.
>looks like he doesn't know biological history either
Competing life that wasn't borne from the primordial ooze that everything alive on this planet shares it's heritage with.

>> No.3126814

>>3126800
so you're arguing that there's no life anywhere else until we have a good sample size of a thousand extraterrestrial populations?

>> No.3126818

Even using extremely conservative (and down right pessimistic) guesses at the chance that life arises on a planet capable of supporting life gives a large number of planets in the universe with life. If only one trillionth of 1% of planets in the universe have life then there are still many many planets with life.

>> No.3126821

>>3126814
Why a thousand troll? Show evidence for ONE.

>> No.3126825

>>3126800
>Yup you're a retard.
Again, no reasoning, no explanation, just insults.
The derivations for the numbers in the drake equation make it explicitly clear how one can estimate the probability of life evolving given how long it took it to evolve in favorable conditions here.

The whole "sample size of one" is facetious. When the phrase is used, it's never explicitly stated what the 'sample' means as a data point, and what the experiment/hypothesis even is. It's careless use of scientific terms in an attempt to sound smart without understanding what the words actually mean.

>> No.3126828

>>3126818
> If only one trillionth of 1% of planets in the universe have life then there are still many many planets with life.

This is not a scientific calculation but the ravings of an idiot.

>> No.3126835

>>3126800

No you're the retard. You ASSUME that life has an incredibly low potential of existing when the conditions are correct when the fact we are here flies in the face of your argument. If it works here then give me one good reason why it wouldn't work 'over there'.

>>4 billion years of evolution
>implying evolution on a molten rock

>> No.3126833 [DELETED] 

>>3126818
>If only one trillionth
You pulled that out of your ass, you have no way to no if it's that low or one to googol. The odds can be ANYTHING.

Drake's equation is bullshit, it has nothing to do with science.

>> No.3126840

>>3126818
>If only one trillionth
You pulled that out of your ass, you have no way to know if it's that low or one to googol. The odds can be ANYTHING.

Drake's equation is bullshit, it has nothing to do with science.

>> No.3126844

>>3126821
Well, one is here on earth. A second population statistically still is insignificant, we could be the only two in the universe, not making life very common at all either, right?

>> No.3126845

>>3126828

Obvious troll is obvious.

>> No.3126856

ITT: Pessimists, christfags, and egocentric morans.

>> No.3126859

>>3126825
>The derivations for the numbers in the drake equation make it explicitly clear how one can estimate the probability of life evolving given how long it took it to evolve in favorable conditions here.

You mean the derivations from your anus? You have NO evidence, you don't know how impossible the probabilities are by one sample.

You cannot twist this to be anything more than your kook theory.

>The whole "sample size of one" is facetious.

It's the only evidence there is idiot, your imaginary statistics are facetious

>> No.3126857

>>3126840

You're right, I don't know if it is correct and no one knows what the real distribution is. But you're just a trolling faggot and no one takes you seriously anyway.

>> No.3126864

>YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXISTS ANYWHERE BESIDES EARTH
>WHAT? NO I CAN'T PROVE THERE IS NO LIFE ANYWHERE BESIDES EARTH

Stay classy /sci/

>> No.3126878

Look guys, clearly these trolls thing that life in the universe is an impossibility. Obviously we aren't here and this is all bullshit because life can't exist. Brb, not existing.

>> No.3126880

>>3126864
>WHAT? NO I CAN'T PROVE THERE IS NO LIFE ANYWHERE BESIDES EARTH
>WHAT? NO I CAN'T PROVE THERE IS NO GOD THEREFORE THERE MUST BE GOD HURRRR

>> No.3126886

>>3126828
>>3126833
Wow, it's like people don't know how to read. It is indeed a scientific calculation. Only looking at visible universe for simplicity's sake, Visible galaxies --> stars per galaxy --> planets per star --> inhabitable planets per planet (a percentage for the slow ones here) etc.
That's the basic reasoning behind the drake equation and it is very much based in science. I get the feeling people don't even know what the word science means anymore. Of course, no one will respond with the definition of the word science because it explicitly explains why this process is scientific. Instead they will find some other point to divert attention to. Such are the fanatics.

>The odds can be ANYTHING
Well for starters, they can't be negative. Again with the absolutes, I get the feeling you didn't even read the drake equation wiki article. If you had, you could explain the process in detail and point out exactly why the reasoning behind it is wrong, but you don't, because you didn't.

>> No.3126890
File: 6 KB, 429x410, 33-30.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126890

The problem with Drake's equation is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.

>> No.3126901

>>3126880

We can, however, prove there's potential for life elsewhere.
But we can't prove the potentiality of god.

>> No.3126911

>>3126901
Still, you are using the same logic as christfags, shame on you.

>> No.3126915

>>3126890
Oh how sweet this ownage tastes

>> No.3126917

>>3126859
>You mean the derivations from your anus?
No, the ones outlined in the drake equation, read up on it.
>It's the only evidence there is idiot.
So all those planets we know about without life are ignorable because...? Sample size of one would be just earth. We have many samples, earth being the only data point with life, the rest have none. The sample size is not one.

Again, you can't explain what the sample means as part of a test or experiment or anything, so you resort to repeating yourself. Also, ad hominem.

>You have NO evidence
What happened to our supposed "ONE sample"? Did it suddenly disappear? You're not being rigorous or consistent with anything you say.

>> No.3126927

>>3126901
you have no proof that competing life can exist elsewhere, zero proof, sorry bub

>> No.3126932

>>3126917
Now I know you are unquestionably retarded. One sample is not evidence to calculate any probability, idiot. The impossibility can be ANYTHING, THE ODDS ARE UNKNOWABLE, BY ONE SAMPLE.

Also see >>3126890 about your kook theory.

>> No.3126934

>>3126927

Proof: a system that in literally all ways is identical to earth.

Life would arise there.

Let's say it takes place in Mirror Milky Way, exactly opposite "across" the universe from us.

Odds of that happening? Infinitely close to zero, but hey. It happened, therefore it is possible to happen again. Even if it's unlikely.

>> No.3126940

>>3126927
your post is poorly worded
>you have no proof that competing life can exist elsewhere
Of course it can, because life can exist on earth.
You should have said:
>you have no proof that competing life exists elsewhere

>> No.3126951
File: 5 KB, 254x199, 440198385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126951

Oh look its the new troll topic on /sci/, and people are getting trolled HARD.

Pic related, it's the box this thread came in.

>> No.3126963

>>3126932
So how many samples did it take for you to determine he is retarded?

>> No.3126962

>>3126934
That is not proof or any scientific probability but wishful (insane?) fantasy scenarios.

>> No.3126968
File: 408 KB, 719x935, OurDiscussion2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3126968

>>3126932
>The impossibility can be ANYTHING, THE ODDS ARE UNKNOWABLE, BY ONE SAMPLE.
>more ad hominem
Still haven't explicitly explained what you mean by sample. By normal definition, the sample in this case is not one.

sage because I'm done here. You couldn't even make it to the discussion stage.

>> No.3126975

>>3126968
You are done because you were remorseless defeated here as well:
>>3126890

>Still haven't explicitly explained what you mean by sample.

See:

>Competing life that wasn't borne from the primordial ooze that everything alive on this planet shares it's heritage with.

>> No.3127026

>>3126890
Oh yeah? And who are you?

You think you can challenge Frank Drake? You little undergrad /sci/ browsing retard.

>> No.3127060

>Life just happens by chance in the universe
>Planets just happen by chance in the universe

You're the kind of people that 10 years ago would have been saying THERE ARE NO PLANETS IN THE UNIVERSE OUTSIDE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM BECAUSE WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE

Whoops, there are billions.

>> No.3127074

>>3127060
Yeah, that's a good point.

>> No.3127287
File: 13 KB, 202x213, Gary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3127287

>> No.3129503

>>3127026
>appeal to authority

>> No.3127287,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>3127026
>appeal to authority