Neil DeGrasse Tyson To Science Deniers: ‘Science Is Not There For You To Cherry Pick’

[ScienceRocks]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson To Science Deniers: ‘Science Is Not There For You To Cherry Pick’

Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and host of National Geographic and Fox’s new show Cosmos, said Sunday that he thinks the media needs to stop providing false balance in stories on scientific subjects like climate change.

Host of CNN’s Reliable Sources Brian Stelter asked Tyson whether he thought the media had a responsibility portray science correctly, particularly when discussing climate change.

“The media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but it doesn’t really apply in science,” Tyson said. “The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view. And then you can be viewed as balanced.”

Stelter showed a clip of President Obama’s climate speech last year, in which he decried climate deniers by saying the country didn’t have time for a “meeting of the flat Earth society.” Tyson said the president’s reference was a good example of how the idea of “balance” in scientific stories doesn’t make sense.

“In the clip you showed of the president — you don’t talk about the spherical Earth with NASA, and then say ‘now let’s give equal time to the flat Earthers,” he said. “Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick…You can decide whether or not to believe in it but that doesn’t change the reality of an emergent scientific truth.”

Neil DeGrasse Tyson To Science Deniers: 'Science Is Not There For You To Cherry Pick' | ThinkProgress

very true

 

[Abraham3]

There is a distinction between political opinions and scientific evidence and findings. The ID folks in the Evolution v ID fight got a little benefit from this same idea that every story requires the opposition be brought forward. We DON'T have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.

 

[R.D.]

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. - Carl Sagan

 

[Abraham3]

The purpose of 99% of the AGW deniers on this planet is NOT the advancement, improvement or expansion of our knowledge. Their goal is to prevent the public from acting against AGW. They do so by attempting to convince the general public that science has failed, that science is corrupt, that science is lying to them. They are not submitting papers for publication. They are not asking for research grants. They are not conducting research on their own. They have recited an enormous quantity of false and deceptive information to the public They are doing everything they can to reach out to the PUBLIC and cast doubt where the scientific method leaves none.

Thus, they are not involved in the "endeavor of science". Their efforts are purely political in nature. They need to be suppressed just as you would any group that seeks their own monetary and political gain at the extreme expense of the general public welfare. People like con artists, embezzlers, bank robbers, mail frauds, crooked politicians.

 

[R.D.]

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read ^^

 

[Abraham3]

Why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" cause they mean two different things

 

[Abraham3]

That should give you a clue. When someone wants to talk about the climate changing, they'll probably use the term "CLIMATE CHANGE". When someone wants to talk about global warming - which is still certainly one part of climate change - they'll probably use the term "GLOBAL WARMING". And when I want to talk to someone devoid of meaningful content on this topic, Frank...

 

[Old Rocks]

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read ^^

Only dumb if you are too obtuse to understand the words.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is it any wonder that the folks who are steadfastly against hydraulic fracturing know absolutely nothing about the science and engineering involved? That's cherry-picking.

 

[Abraham3]

I know lots of people that know enormously more about science than do you that oppose hydraulic fracturing.