Credulous skeptics

[exchemist]

All humans easily beieve that which is emotionally apealing to them, and self-identifying as a "sceptic" or "rationalist" doesn't change this fact.

Such labels are tribal identity markers anyway, and identifying with a side is always an impediment to critical and independent thinking. Hence the group think common in "sceptic" communities.

If you think Tyson struggles with his history though, you should take a look at Carl Sagan here spending 25 mins of Cosmos being wrong about pretty much everything he says regarding the Library of Alexandria and related issues.

Just because people think critically and sceptically on one topic doesn't mean they will do likewise on another topic. We tend to put our own rationality on a pedestal though (especially "sceptics") and see only the flaws in others.

The wonders of the compartmentalised human mind

Yes I think you put your finger on it here. The danger is when people who are expert in one field delude themselves into thinking that makes them also expert in another, which they have not properly studied.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well I suppose you could argue that religion only influences and affects those who aren't all that smart as it is, so those who are more skeptical of religion are the one's who tend to be innovators.

You could argue that, but in so doing you’d be claiming that William of Ockham, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, George Lemaitre, to name but a few, “weren’t all that smart”.

 

[danieldemol]

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I think they wouldn't be experts within their fields if they had no regard for truth, however I dont think it is possible for a person to be expert at everything, so you may find them to not be spot on when talking areas outside their expertise.

In my opinion.

 

[blü 2]

"sceptics" often trust what nonsense such people spout on topics they have minimal knowledge about simply because of their scientific credentials and the groupthink of "sceptic" communities on certain issues (primarily the history of religion).

What's a good clear example of that?

 

[LuisDantas]

He may or may not be correct. Personally I disagree with him but I don't mind that he is arguing a different view. What I object to is his using invented histories to support his arguments. False histories should be condemned whether or not you agree with his points.

That is sort of his point, you know.

 

[Altfish]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I think many of the people you listed called out NdGT's facts; PZ Myers has even accused him of rape. I've attended talks where many of his statements have been questioned.
The talk was humorous and based on fact, I enjoyed it.

 

[Augustus]

What's a good clear example of that?

People keep posting the video of Tyson claiming al-Ghazali said maths is the work of the devil here on RF.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP is not about their scientific credentials, but their credulity and lack of knowledge on other topics they opine on publicly.

Also that "sceptics" often trust what nonsense such people spout on topics they have minimal knowledge about simply because of their scientific credentials and the groupthink of "sceptic" communities on certain issues (primarily the history of religion).

No, I think that this nonsense of his is just an excuse to attack Tyson and his science. It appears to be a cover up. At least one of his claims appears to be wrong.

 

[PureX]

Paid provocateurs.

Tyson should avoid those people and all that social nonsense and stick to the field he's in. He's good at explaining the science of astrophysics, and even the state of science in general. He loses credibility every time he descends into the pit of social knee-jerk philosophy.

 

[ChristineM]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I think you have a serious downer on Tyson, so much so you have created a blog to show your distaste of Tyson with lots of links to the blog and lots of opinion but very little in the eay of factual evidence and independent sources.

I personally think this post is nothing bit spam to promote your blog so i won't be going any further with it

 

[blü 2]

People keep posting the video of Tyson claiming al-Ghazali said maths is the work of the devil here on RF.

Skeptics seriously do that? I can't think of any examples.

 

[Augustus]

No, I think that this nonsense of his is just an excuse to attack Tyson and his science.

Why does someone have to have an "anti-science" agenda to criticise a public intellectual for being very wrong on a subject outside his speciality and about which he knows little about?

Shouldn't those who favour reason support such actions?

 

[exchemist]

You've shifted the goalposts a bit here. I would have thought that in that time some audience members might have done some research. Are you 100% your source is correct?



I doubt his claim was quite that black and white. If he said "religious belief often stifles innovation", then I would agree with him.

Does religious belief stifle innovation, though? Are there really more examples of religion stifling innovation than of promoting it? My understanding is that most scientists, engineers and inventors from the Renaissance until the end of the c.19th had some sort of religious faith, and a good number of them were clerics.

 

[Augustus]

Skeptics seriously do that? I can't think of any examples.

Search is your friend

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why does someone have to have an "anti-science" agenda to criticise a public intellectual for being very wrong on a subject outside his speciality and about which he knows little about?

Shouldn't those who favour reason support such actions?

Hmm, maybe you jumped to conclusions. The OP has one other thread on this forum. One guess on the topic of that thread.

And "very wrong"? I don't know about that. He does not appear to be very wrong about Al. He may have not openly stated that math is the work of the devil, but he does appear to be one of the prime movers away from the Golden Age of Islam.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I can't tell from any of your three links what Tyson is supposed to have said or how it's supposed to be wrong.

Edit: I mean, they don't give a direct quote (AFAICT); they just paraphrase.

 

[Augustus]

Hmm, maybe you jumped to conclusions. The OP has one other thread on this forum. One guess on the topic of that thread.

Was on this topic as I remember it and AFAIK didn't turn into an attack on science.

And "very wrong"? I don't know about that. He does not appear to be very wrong about Al. He may have not openly stated that math is the work of the devil, but he does appear to be one of the prime movers away from the Golden Age of Islam.

AG had little to no impact.

This might give a better idea of the kind of things that did reduce the wealth and stability of Islamic societies:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I can't help but notice that your first story (Bush and Star Names) ends, in the link, with this: '"Of course very little changes in that particular talk. I will still mention Islamic Extremists flying planes into buildings in the 21st century. I will still contrast it with the Golden Age of Islam a millennium earlier..."
Well, the rest of that particular talk is just as wrong Tyson's Bush and Star Names fantasy.'

Now, is that trying to say that there were no extremists flying airplanes into buildings that day, and that there wasn't a Golden Age of Islam a thousand years ago in which Muslim scholars basically saved the world's ancient sciences and literature? And that in the last century, Islam has basically stopped bothering translating any of the world's science and literature into their own languages? Because I believe those things are factually correct.

I also noted, in that story, that Tyson admitted he erred, and got part of the story wrong. He is, after all, an astrophysicist, not a historian, and so one doesn't expect him to display the historian's skill-set.

Finding that, I didn't bother to continue with the other 2 stories.

 

[blü 2]

Search is your friend

It's your claim. If you can't back it up I'll just ignore it.

 

[Augustus]

It's your claim. If you can't back it up I'll just ignore it.

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

Are you saying that it would be surprising if a someone posted a video of NDT on RF?