Credulous skeptics

[KWED]

Here
"he took all these ways people were practicing Islam put them together codified it said this is what you need to do to be a good Muslim ... And in there was the statement that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil and that cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period"

And here
"in that text included the assertion . . . in there was the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil"

The irony here is so strong that I've had to open a window.
This really has made my day. Thanks

That is an entirely different video. (Would you like a hand with those goalposts, they look heavy?)

You linked to a specific post that you claimed brought you here because it contained the false Al Ghazali quote. That post contained a video of Tyson.
Sorry, but I have just watched the video in question again and he categorically does not say that.
He mentions Al Ghazali at 6:44. His actual words are...
"Out of his work you get the philosophy that mathematics is the work of the devil. That, combined with other philosophical codifications of what Islam was and would become , the entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed and it has not recovered since".
That is the only mention of Al Ghazali. An tbh, it is not an entirely unreasonable claim - as you have admitted.

For one whose entire argument is the necessity for accurate quotes and intellectual honesty, it is somewhat surprising that you misquote and then insist you didn't when the evidence is there for all to see.
Perhaps your irrational obsession with Tyson is clouding your judgement.

 

[KWED]

I have no problem with genuine skeptics.

What is a "genuine sceptic"?

However there is a clique of self proclaimed skeptics who endorse Tyson and his false histories.

Is there? I am not aware of any "self-proclaimed sceptic" publicly stating that Tyson's historical examples used in his talks are all accurate. Perhaps you could direct me to some references?

Richard Dawkins will be giving Tyson an award this October.

The Dawkins Award is for promoting science, humanist and secular values and freedom of inquiry. It is not an award for strict historical accuracy.

Most of Dawkins' clueless clique seem to have no idea that Tyson's histories are fiction.

Hold on. You just said that they all endorse his errors. Now you claim that they are unaware of them. Make your mind up!

They should not call themselves skeptics.

 

[KWED]

I said fewer "skeptics" seem to be posting this story. Note the scare quotes.

If you know there are fewer "sceptics" posting the video in question (that doesn't contain the quote you claim it does), then you must know the relative number of posts containing that video before and after your much needed arrival here.

 

[Augustus]

You want to call my arguments false? Then back it up. You still have not provided a shred of evidence refuting my arguments.

I, on the other hand, have provided plenty of evidence that Tyson is a source of misinformation. Especially when it comes to history.

I wonder if they will extend the same "scepticism" and mental gymnastics excusing hypocrisy the next time some US fundy preacher gets caught receiving a happy ending massage from a male escort.

"How do you know he called Mr Fantastic's Sensual Schlong Massage for sexual gratification? He might have had a sore back and just wanted a normal massage but no one else was open at 1am."

"Actually he probably wanted to minister to the sinner, and stripped and allowed Mr Fantastic to oil his exposed genitals so he wouldn't get suspicious. In fact by preventing a more serious sin from occurring he was not hypocritical but sacrificing his own needs for the good of the community. He's a hero."

 

[KWED]

I get a lot of my material from Thony Christie who is an atheist.
Christie's a historian specializing in the history of science and math. He gets annoyed when people spread false history. False history should be repellent to anyone, whether you're an atheist or not.

A few of Thony's pieces on Tyson:
Why doesn't he just shut up? Thony disembowels Tyson's history regarding Newton.
Preach Truth -- Serve Up Myths More critiques on Tyson's fantasies regarding Newton.
Nil deGrasse Tyson knows nothing about nothing Thony points out that Tyson somewhat exaggerates Arab accomplishments.

Thony Christie demonstrates an atheist can exercise critical thinking skills and have a high regard for truth.

No idea who Christie is but you seem most enamoured with him. However, a quick Google finds other academics in the History of Science who take him to task for inaccuracies and flawed arguments.
The point being, don't nail your colours too firmly to one mast, lest that ship turn out to be leaky. Ironically, you are castigating sceptics for something they don't do (hold Tyson up as some authority on history) while you do the same yourself, to another source whose arguments have been questioned by other experts in the field.
It seems Christie is equally irrational in his obsession with Tyson as you are. Are you related?

And yet here you are vehemently defending Tyson throughout this thread.

You seem confused. I am not "defending Tyson". I am not really familiar with him. I have probably watched more of his videos via this thread than I did before - and I'm not overly impressed with his style. He seems more the entertainer than the educator - at least with his "militant atheist" hat on.
No, what I am doing is pointing out the flaws in your position. Not the same thing.

You've even made some demonstrably false claims in Tyson's defense.

Such as? (BTW, unlike yourself, I do not consider myself to be some infallible, intellectual colossus. I admit that I often make mistakes. Well, perhaps not often ).

 

[KWED]

I do not care about what Tyson or American atheists think.

But if you are a "self-proclaimed sceptic", you must care about him!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if you are a "self-proclaimed sceptic", you must care about him!!!

I am not a 'skeptic', I am an strong atheist and an orthodox Hindu following the 'Advaita' (non-dual) philosophy.

 

[PureX]

I have appreciated some of Tyson's video lectures on cosmology and on general science subjects. I find him both knowledgeable and credible.

But I am somewhat embarrassed for him when I see him touting atheism as he is clearly out of his depth in the arena of theology, and is contributing nothing of value to that discussion.

Most atheists have no real clue what theism is, or what it's really for or about. Then again, the same can be said of many theists, too. They all need to speak less and listen more. But when convictions run high and knowledge runs low, the noise is great while the results are negligible.

 

[Hop_David]

Your arguments have already been largely refuted.

Absolutely false.

You have not produced the Bush 9-11 video Tyson described.
You have not shown evidence that Newton wrote Principia before he turned 26.
And you have not produced the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. Nor have you shown a collapse of innovation in the 1100s in Ghazali's time.

So far as I can tell, the only thing I see is your speculation that Ghazali figuratively wrote that math is the work of the devil (whatever that means). But you haven't been able to produce the text where figuratively writes this.

But plenty of examples have been given of Ghazali praising the discipline of math.

 

[Hop_David]

No idea who Christie is but you seem most enamoured with him.

Thony Christie's an atheist. As are Tim O'Neill and David McAfee, also strong critics of Tyson.

And then there are a multitude of atheists that haven't even heard of Tyson, much less endorse him.

The point being that I have no beef with atheists in general. In this thread I am criticizing those who are putting a source of false history on a pedestal.

However, a quick Google finds other academics in the History of Science who take him to task for inaccuracies and flawed arguments.

Could you be more specific?

So you agree with Tyson that the famous Halley-Newton encounter took place before Newton turned 26?

And that Newton invented calculus because of Halley's dare? In two months time?

Which of Thony's criticisms do you find flawed and inaccurate?

 

[Hop_David]

I have appreciated some of Tyson's video lectures on cosmology and on general science subjects. I find him both knowledgeable and credible.

Tyson is also a source of bad math and wrong science. See my list.

Most of his misinformation is harmless. For example who cares if his listeners think the James Webb Space Telescope is parked in earth's shadow? Or that there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals?

But Neil deGrasse Tyson's false history is a serious offense.

 

[Hop_David]

I am not a 'skeptic', I am an strong atheist and an orthodox Hindu following the 'Advaita' (non-dual) philosophy.

I have no problem with atheists or atheism in general.

I am criticizing a small group of atheists who are endorsing a source of false history.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is good. History is one of my interests.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absolutely false.

You have not produced the Bush 9-11 video Tyson described.
You have not shown evidence that Newton wrote Principia before he turned 26.
And you have not produced the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. Nor have you shown a collapse of innovation in the 1100s in Ghazali's time.

So far as I can tell, the only thing I see is your speculation that Ghazali figuratively wrote that math is the work of the devil (whatever that means). But you haven't been able to produce the text where figuratively writes this.

But plenty of examples have been given of Ghazali praising the discipline of math.

He was wrong about Bush, but the rest you have pretty much lost the argument because you take things too literally all of the time. As you just did here once again.

 

[Hop_David]

He was wrong about Bush, but the rest you have pretty much lost the argument because you take things too literally all of the time. As you just did here once again.

Tyson tells us Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26.

You would argue that 26 is Tyson's figurative way of saying 42?

The only thing your literal vs figurative handwaving refutes is your credibility.

 

[Augustus]

He was wrong about Bush, but the rest you have pretty much lost the argument because you take things too literally all of the time. As you just did here once again.

Imagine a creationist celebrity repeatedly made the following argument:

Many Jewish people were successful and integrated members of German society. Then Darwin said "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races", which boosted white supremacism then the Nazis started exterminating Jews and other untermenschen.

Now the above quote is actually real, and there is plenty of evidence scientific theories of evolution played some role in scientific racism and eugenics. As such, the above argument is at least as accurate as Tyson's (it's actually significantly more accurate as Tyson relied entirely on made up paraphrase and a misrepresentation of AGs theology, but that's beside the point).

The thing is, it is still obviously misleading due to how the information is framed, and what it leaves out in terms of context and other far more significant causes.

Would you also argue that objection to the above scenario would constitute being 'overly literal', or should it be called out as misrepresentation? I say the latter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tyson is also a source of bad math and wrong science. See my list.

Most of his misinformation is harmless. For example who cares if his listeners think the James Webb Space Telescope is parked in earth's shadow? Or that there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals?

But Neil deGrasse Tyson's false history is a serious offense.

I am too lazy to look for what I would call an authoritative source before I have had my coffee but when I googled:

are there more transcendental numbers than irrational numbers - Google Search

I found that there are more transcendental irrational numbers than algebraic irrational number. It appears that me merely used the wrong terminology. He is not a mathematician. so this error is understandable. That raises the question, are there more transcendental irrational numbers than algebraic ones. And it appears that there are. So aside from your nitpick he was right.


Irrational and Transcendental Numbers | ScienceBlogs

So why do you have a bee in your bonnet about Tyson? You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tyson tells us Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26.

You would argue that 26 is Tyson's figurative way of saying 42?

The only thing your literal vs figurative handwaving refutes is your credibility.

LOL! Sorry, but you have shown yourself to be wrong far too often to be taken at all seriously. You may be taking his claims out of context, again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Imagine a creationist celebrity repeatedly made the following argument:

Many Jewish people were successful and integrated members of German society. Then Darwin said "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races", which boosted white supremacism then the Nazis started exterminating Jews and other untermenschen.

Now the above quote is actually real, and there is plenty of evidence scientific theories of evolution played some role in scientific racism and eugenics. As such, the above argument is at least as accurate as Tyson's (it's actually significantly more accurate as Tyson relied entirely on made up paraphrase and a misrepresentation of AGs theology, but that's beside the point).

The thing is, it is still obviously misleading due to how the information is framed, and what it leaves out in terms of context and other far more significant causes.

Would you also argue that objection to the above scenario would constitute being 'overly literal', or should it be called out as misrepresentation? I say the latter.

So are you saying that the OP is just quote mining when it comes to Tyson? That appears to be the case quite often. Darwin did say that. But of course that phrase was taken out of context. He was not advocating for that action, he was predicting and lamenting that action.

Tyson does not appear to be doing that with AG. You keep ignoring the fact that he got that idea from what appears to be most of the historians that cover this matter. And if you rea AG's work about science after his change they sound a lot like Ken Ham discussing "historical and observational science". As usual when it comes to history you appear to have it backwards.

 

[Hop_David]

I am too lazy to look for what I would call an authoritative source before I have had my coffee but when I googled:

are there more transcendental numbers than irrational numbers - Google Search

I found that there are more transcendental irrational numbers than algebraic irrational number. It appears that me merely used the wrong terminology. He is not a mathematician. so this error is understandable. That raises the question, are there more transcendental irrational numbers than algebraic ones. And it appears that there are. So aside from your nitpick he was right.

Nope. His addled ramblings on infinite sets is a badly mangled explanation of Cantor's ideas. See this discussion by VazScep. See also Tyson getting the ridicule he deserves on the bad math subreddit.