A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old September 26th 18, 05:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:27:16 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Douglas Adams had this to say about religion:

“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does
mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”
Douglas Adams


H. L. Mencken said this about religion...

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill. Worse, he is incurable."
- H. L. Mencken

https://tinyurl.com/ya3s7r7p

Paul A
  #162  
Old September 26th 18, 06:14 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:16:25 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Why should knowability influence opinion? I think it is likely that
the true nature of reality, the underlying "why" of universal laws

are
unknowable.


So what is your opinion about this unknownable "why"? Why are the
universal laws as they are, according to your opinion?


I don't think it's a meaningful question. They are what they are.


The answer in that case is perfectly knowable. I can count the

grains
and know for certain.


I would like to see you count several billion of grains of sand.


It matters not that it would be tedious, or difficult, or take years.
The point is that the sand is countable. Whether there are an even or
odd number is knowable.

I've certainly never met anybody who had no opinion on the question

of
gods.


True, you haven't met me...


I do not believe you have no opinion on the matter. You do not appear
to be stupid. Indeed, you come across as rather silly pretending to
have no opinion.

To have no opinion about the existence of God is no stranger than to
have no opinion about why the laws of nature are like they are.


The laws of nature exist. They are describable. Even assuming that the
question of "why" is meaningful, not being able to answer that simply
reflects a lack of knowledge. We know beyond reasonable doubt that God
(that is, the Abrahamic monster) doesn't exist, because it is
logically incoherent and we can see how it was invented out of earlier
gods. It is as silly to suggest it is real as to suggest Harry Potter
is real. We can't say with certainty that no other gods exist, but we
can observe that there is zero evidence for them, and that there is no
question about the Universe that requires a god or is better answered
by positing one. So the only intellectually honest position is to
assume none, in the same way we assume that Russell's Teapot doesn't
exist.
  #163  
Old September 26th 18, 08:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 25/09/2018 22:51, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:24:54 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
Why is it mandatory to "choose side" here?


Because that is what the majority of people do when faced with a

binary
yes or no question (and what polarises US political debate too).


Why is it mandatory to do what the majority does?


It isn't, but it is very rare for anyone to be burnt at the stake for
believing that the probability of there being a God is exactly 1/2.

Much like with your odd or even numbers bet. Most people will plump for
one or the other a very few will sit on the fence at 1/2 but what is
surprising is that all the values in between are more popular than 1/2.

A majority of the people don't watch the skies. Does that mean we all
must stop stargazing?


No. But the behaviour of a multitude of people asked to make a binary
decision in the absence of any evidence can be computed. That is what
the maximally uninformative priors do for Bayesian statistics.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #164  
Old September 26th 18, 08:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

I see that astrophysics has reached a dead end so what is there left to do but followers trying to make themselves feel better at the expense of others. Some may even get the creeping sense that they, like the national socialists, developed this type of despising because there was nothing inspiring in their outlook anyway.

Astronomy has always been here and rings out its joys in a silent way amid all the vibrancy and bustle of daily life. For the spiritual, it is where the Universal meets the individual as we participate in all those motions which make life possible.





  #165  
Old September 26th 18, 09:39 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 25/09/2018 21:16, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:26:58 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:03:48 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


Why is it unlikely to have no opinion about something you've

realized
is unknowable?


Why should knowability influence opinion? I think it is likely that
the true nature of reality, the underlying "why" of universal laws

are
unknowable.


So what is your opinion about this unknownable "why"? Why are the
universal laws as they are, according to your opinion?


My view is that without the constants of nature being rather close to
what they happen to be we would not be around to wonder about it. The
weak anthropomorphic principle. How other alternative universes might
have looked had things been different are spelled out fairly clearly in
Martin Rees's book "Just Six Numbers".

Much like Conway's game of life derives from very simple rules but turns
out to be Turing complete. Complexity is something that can arise as an
emergent property of what is in essence a very simple model system.

It does not stop me from believing with high confidence
that the mechanisms we can observe accurately describe these things.
Theologically, I can easily argue that the existence of gods is

likely
unknowable (unless they reveal themselves), but nevertheless

believe,
on the face of the available evidence, that they do not exist.


Compared to that bowl with sand and the question about whether the
number of grains of sand in that bowl is an even number or an odd
number. That too is, in practice, unknowable, and it would be

quite
natural to have no opinion about that.


The answer in that case is perfectly knowable. I can count the

grains
and know for certain.


I would like to see you count several billion of grains of sand. One
single miscount would make you producera the wrong answer. And during
the counting process some grains are likely to split into two or more
parts, changing the number of grains. Finally, if you would count one
gran every second, 24 hrs per day every day all year around year after
year, one human lifetime would be insufficient to count a few billion
grains.


Indeed. In practice the number of grains of sand is unknowable because
manipulating them to count will invariably split some into pieces.

I cannot examine the Universe for a god that has
the power to hide itself.


Sure you can examine it, but you may of course fail to find any deities.
But who knows, maybe you are able to outsmart god?


I am reminded of a Douglas Adams quote about bizarrely improbable
coincidences:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/now_...ce/345641.html

For those who have realized that the question about the existence

or
nonexistence of deities also is unknowable it would be just as
natural to have no opinion about that question. After all, your
opinion about it would say something about you but not anything

about
our universe.


I've certainly never met anybody who had no opinion on the question

of
gods.


True, you haven't met me...


I am interested in the question but I don't believe the answer to it is
knowable in this universe.

Pretty much for the same reason I've never met anybody with no
opinion on the shape of the Earth. Nobody is that poorly informed on
either issue.


To have no opinion about the existence of God is no stranger than to
have no opinion about why the laws of nature are like they are.


In the latter case there is a requirement that the laws have to be
sufficient to allow matter to arise, stars to form and burn for long
enough for interesting chemistry to occur. That is quite a few fences to
be jumped over. Multiverse theories get out of this bind by allowing the
entire parameter space to have been tried with only the interesting ones
having observers or things to observe. The rest are sterile and boring.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #166  
Old September 26th 18, 11:07 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

The unfortunate empiricists modeled the motions of the Earth on RA/Dec so in their alternative solar system the Earth has a zero degree inclination and a pivoting circle of illumination off the Equator to suit their clockwork solar system and a descent into intellectual bankruptcy -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

In the stable and reasonable intellectual environment, Lat/Long and the 24 hour system is modeled to a close proximity to the daily and annual motions of the Earth, first as a proportion and then as a daily average.

I marvel to see so many struggle against their better side but eventually the spiritual side breaks through, at east for most people and they go from frantic declarations to the ease of enjoying creation including themselves.



  #167  
Old September 26th 18, 12:11 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:01:11 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 8:43:48 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

Exactly what do you mean with "the universe billions of years older
than our universe"?


The antecedent to "ours" is "civilization" not "universe."


And how do you know that intelligent civilisation will not
self-destruct within a few millennia or so?


Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.

I object to your conclusion "almost certainly" when there are no
known positive cases.


Reject all you want, but that's just your biases and prejudices
speaking. Anyone with a grasp of probability theory and no
preconceived notions would disagree with you.


No, they would disagree with you.


I have a grasp of probability theory and I disagree with YOU.

You do need a sufficient base of actual data to be able to say anything
about the probability, otherwise you are just guessing.


We have actual data on one civilization. YOU are just guessing about its
longevity, but that's irrelevant because an example of one AND proof that
almost every star has planets (via Kepler), it is a VERY good "guess"
that life has developed elsewhere.

You are the one who is biased here, not me,


:-))

since I have not claimed any probability figure about that.


THAT is YOUR bias speaking.

We just know too little to be able to do that reliably.


Just the sheer numbers of planets in the universe shred that assertion.

You should read Aristotle's writings about nature as an example
of how erroneous conclusions a brain that THINKS can produce in the
absence of evidence. Such thinking is mostly wishful thinking.


Aristotle didn't have probability theory to guide him.


That didn't prevent him to declare erroneous claims as facts.


Non sequitur.

All these are supernatural deities with supposedly supernatural
powers...



Nope. You failed to copy the scriptural evidence I listed to promote
your preconceived notions.

"the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh" -- Numbers 27:16

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison"
-- 1 Peter 3:19

The next line I didn't list explains that the spirits referred to
were disobedient in the time of Noah. From this it is clear that
after death they became disembodied spirits who weren't "deities"
since they had to be preached to.

And YOU have a particular definition of "supernatural" that
apparently means "anything that physics hasn't encountered/detected."
I reject that definition :-)


Nope! Something supernatural is something which contradicts physics.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to
transcend the laws of nature"

And as for the "laws of nature,":

"We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we
understand the laws only dimly." -- Albert Einstein

There's a LOT of evidence that our own spirits exist, but it's mostly
anecdotal (I say MOSTLY but not ALL).


Anecdotal "evidence" is not real evidence.


It's not SCIENTIFIC evidence, but it IS REAL. And I said "MOSTLY," not
completely.

But if evidence for the existence of spirits exists, why isn't it a
field of scientific study?


The scientific method requires that a phenomenon be repeatable by any
competent researcher. It also requires the ability to change the inputs.

The most scientific evidence for spirits was obtained by Dr. Duncan
MacDougall. People in power prevented further investigation because
it was considered "ghoulish." Such experiments (making measurements
on patients as death approaches) can't be repeated today because
medical intervention procedures are highly advanced and would interfere
should such an attempt be made.

And why isn't theology an exact science like physics? Why
aren't our most powerful computers running simulations of God?

There, now you have some things to think about...


I thought. You got nuttin'! We don't know enough about how life started
to do believable simulations. We don't even know if it started here.
  #168  
Old September 26th 18, 01:52 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 26/09/2018 12:11, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:01:11 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 8:43:48 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

Exactly what do you mean with "the universe billions of years older
than our universe"?


The antecedent to "ours" is "civilization" not "universe."


And how do you know that intelligent civilisation will not
self-destruct within a few millennia or so?


Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.


We don't know of any other ET civilisations though. As yet we haven't
found life arising independently on another planet either although there
may be hints of life having been on Mars back when it had liquid water.
(it may still be there deep in underground rocks or dormant as cysts)

I object to your conclusion "almost certainly" when there are no
known positive cases.


Reject all you want, but that's just your biases and prejudices
speaking. Anyone with a grasp of probability theory and no
preconceived notions would disagree with you.


No, they would disagree with you.


I have a grasp of probability theory and I disagree with YOU.


You have a rather weak grasp of probability theory and an even weaker
grasp of the Drake equation. Planets now appear to be far more common
than was once thought but a lot of them are hot Jupiters tidally locked
to their parent star (a side effect of present experimental methods
which are particularly good at detecting planetary transits and Doppler
shifts as the hefty planet orbits its parent star close in).

Comparatively few have been found in the Goldilocks zone (although that
may be a selection effect of present observational techniques).

You do need a sufficient base of actual data to be able to say anything
about the probability, otherwise you are just guessing.


We have actual data on one civilization. YOU are just guessing about its
longevity, but that's irrelevant because an example of one AND proof that
almost every star has planets (via Kepler), it is a VERY good "guess"
that life has developed elsewhere.


It is certainly possible. But whether or not it is common for life to
evolve beyond the single celled stage is still an open question. One
awkward upper bound on the timescale that a technological civilisation
can operate without having to develop space faring technology is the
time it takes to exhaust the finite resources of their home planet.

You are the one who is biased here, not me,


:-))

since I have not claimed any probability figure about that.


THAT is YOUR bias speaking.

We just know too little to be able to do that reliably.


Just the sheer numbers of planets in the universe shred that assertion.


If intelligent life was really common in our galaxy then there should be
some residual signals for our radio and optical astronomers to see. That
or we would have seen self replicating probes by now a la Fermi paradox.
And why isn't theology an exact science like physics? Why
aren't our most powerful computers running simulations of God?

There, now you have some things to think about...


I thought. You got nuttin'! We don't know enough about how life started
to do believable simulations. We don't even know if it started here.


The chemists and molecular biologists are slowly getting closer to
finding out answers. The tricky step is more likely to be the point
where single celled simple life makes the transition to complex
multicellular organisms. Science is always a step by step refinement
from present knowledge by way of experiments.

https://www.the-scientist.com/featur...-complex-42874

What they find will be way more convincing than a "Just So" story.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #169  
Old September 26th 18, 07:41 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

Hey guys, the celestial sphere subculture has to be one of the oddest groups ever to appear on the planet for although the RA/Dec frameworks shares the same 24 hour system as the Lat/Long system, the latter system is tied to the facts of around and rotating Earth -

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...88eb3f4f2158c7

No doubt the theoretical priests and their best boy in the class will have problems with one 24 hour day is the same as one rotation but subcultures will do that to you.

  #170  
Old September 26th 18, 07:54 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

Hey guys, the celestial sphere subculture has to be one of the oddest groups ever to appear on the planet for although the RA/Dec framework shares the same 24 hour system as the Lat/Long system, the latter system is tied to the facts of a round and rotating Earth -

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...88eb3f4f2158c7

No doubt the theoretical priests and their best boy in the class followers will have problems with one 24 hour day being the equivalent of one rotation but subcultures will do that to you.

I would say to go ahead and enjoy part of the timekeeping story and climb out of that hole that was dug for most of you at school but such stories are only for those who can rather than those who won't or can't -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7yoXhbOQ3Y&t=395s


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.