Why doesn't he stick to teaching about science? I know this is a rhetorical question, but he and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others burn so much of their credibility when they try to tell me that I can't believe in God and evolution, that I can't believe that the earth is warming but be skeptical of international bodies' efforts to solve the problem (or non-problem), or that I cannot know that I don't want a sexual relationship with a man without giving it a try. I am pretty sure I don't want to stick my genitals into an electrical socket, but I don't think I need to give it a try just to make sure. Thanks for setting me straight, Bill.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I know you guys all love Bill Nye, so you probably awaited his new Netflix show's release eagerly. He has delivered, and although I have not actually watched the show, I can discern its high quality and tasteful approach from videos such as this one:
I still enjoy watching Bill Nye The Science Guy with my daughter. It's such a fantastic show, and he's such a fantastic science educator. I really wish he would stick to that.
I still enjoy watching Bill Nye The Science Guy with my daughter. It's such a fantastic show, and he's such a fantastic science educator. I really wish he would stick to that.
There are many very cringeworthy videos by Rachel Bloom.
She has talent and she is funny sometimes, but she is so self loathing and progressive feminist all the bad things about modern pop culture that it's hard to defend. Definitely product of this zeitgeist and not in a good way.
I watched Crazy Ex Girlfriend and it was so good and funny at times and then it would just totally go off the rails and be gross and ugh. So many of the bad things about modern culture in that show.
So, I watched a few of Episodes of Bill Nye saves the world tonight and they weren't as weird as the sex show. I still don't love the Nye, but don't think it's fair to judge his show based on the ice cream sex cartoon.
So, I watched a few of Episodes of Bill Nye saves the world tonight and they weren't as weird as the sex show. I still don't love the Nye, but don't think it's fair to judge his show based on the ice cream sex cartoon.
So, I watched a few of Episodes of Bill Nye saves the world tonight and they weren't as weird as the sex show. I still don't love the Nye, but don't think it's fair to judge his show based on the ice cream sex cartoon.
So don't judge his show based on his show?
Brilliant observation
Exactly. And I'll try not to judge you as an A hole based on one post.
So, I watched a few of Episodes of Bill Nye saves the world tonight and they weren't as weird as the sex show. I still don't love the Nye, but don't think it's fair to judge his show based on the ice cream sex cartoon.
So don't judge his show based on his show?
Brilliant observation
Exactly. And I'll try not to judge you as an A hole based on one post.
The attack on Nye's mechanical engineering degree is petty and hypocritical. You can't criticize 'appeal to [scientific] authority' and then dismiss Nye on account of him not being enough of an authority.
That said, the accusation that Nye conflates science and morality is fair and my biggest gripe with him. I think it's dangerous to say that scientific facts should be used to answer the 'should' questions.
The 'should' questions are hard to address if we don't agree on the science . The author does a really good job boiling 'anti-science' accusations down to scientists wanting to splice three people's genes together to make a baby and some people taking moral exceptions. There is a lot of bad science and distrust of science that the author just brushes off as not existing.
The attack on Nye's mechanical engineering degree is petty and hypocritical. You can't criticize 'appeal to [scientific] authority' and then dismiss Nye on account of him not being enough of an authority.
Do not disagree in the least.
I hesitated posting this piece but decided it made a strong enough case in showing that many of those that claim scientific authority are not immune to their own bias and are not above cloaking political advocacy as hard science.
The attack on Nye's mechanical engineering degree is petty and hypocritical. You can't criticize 'appeal to [scientific] authority' and then dismiss Nye on account of him not being enough of an authority.
Do not disagree in the least.
I hesitated posting this piece but decided it made a strong enough case in showing that many of those that claim scientific authority are not immune to their own bias and are not above cloaking political advocacy as hard science.
Why doesn't he stick to teaching about science? I know this is a rhetorical question, but he and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others burn so much of their credibility when they try to tell me that I can't believe in God and evolution, that I can't believe that the earth is warming but be skeptical of international bodies' efforts to solve the problem (or non-problem), or that I cannot know that I don't want a sexual relationship with a man without giving it a try. I am pretty sure I don't want to stick my genitals into an electrical socket, but I don't think I need to give it a try just to make sure. Thanks for setting me straight, Bill.
To clarify NDT has not advocated any of that you listed.
Why doesn't he stick to teaching about science? I know this is a rhetorical question, but he and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others burn so much of their credibility when they try to tell me that I can't believe in God and evolution, that I can't believe that the earth is warming but be skeptical of international bodies' efforts to solve the problem (or non-problem), or that I cannot know that I don't want a sexual relationship with a man without giving it a try. I am pretty sure I don't want to stick my genitals into an electrical socket, but I don't think I need to give it a try just to make sure. Thanks for setting me straight, Bill.
To clarify NDT has not advocated any of that you listed.
A couple of Neil DeGrasse Tyson videos, and I pulled out just a couple of quotes from them.
"None of this is any sign that there is a benevolent anything out there"
"The sooner you understand that, the faster we can get along with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us. So once you understand that humans are warming the planet, you can then have a political conversation about that.....those have political answers...." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/degrasse-tyson-science-deniers_us_58f99e89e4b06b9cb91572a1
The attached are videos of him speaking, not somebody paraphrasing him, you can judge for yourself. As for the sexual orientation issues, I wasn't specifically speaking about Tyson but about Nye, and I think the videos from the OP certainly reflect that point of view.
I appreciate that you very respectfully disagree about what Neil DeGrasse Tyson does and doesn't advocate, but I can't listen to the above videos (including the one listed in the Huffington Post article) without thinking he falls in line with the first two points I made. I personally find Tyson to be dismissive, condescending, and egalitarian. Perhaps that is a character flaw in me. I will respectfully listen to someone with whom I disagree if they present their arguments rationally and respectfully, but for me he goes beyond that. If you need evidence of that, just look at the title page of his presentation in the first video - "Stupid Design". Just present your arguments, Neil, don't try to insult me or tell me that science can tell me what was present before the Big Bang or why the Big Bang occurred, why my life might have a purpose, etc. Bill Nye is just recently ridiculous but dangerous nonetheless. I must remember, both of these guys are on TV, so they are obviously smarter than I.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
