Credulous skeptics

[Hop_David]

But I'm struggling with your last accusation, that, according to Tyson, Newton supposedly gave up on perturbation theory (is it?) due to his religious belief. Where in the link does Tyson say that?

Starting at 20:07 of the Beyond Belief video:

for that hypothesis and so what concerns me now is even if you're as brilliant as Newton you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops it just stops you're kind of no good anymore for advancing that frontier waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn't have God on the brain and who says that's a really cool problem I want to solve it they come in and solve it but look at the time delay this was a hundred year time delay.

And the math that's in perturbation theory is like crumbs for Newton he could have come up with that.

The guy invented calculus just on a dare practically when someone asked him what what you know you know Ike how come planets orbit in ellipses and not some other shape and he couldn't answer that he goes home for two months comes back out comes integral differential calculus because he needed that to answer that court to answer that question and so so this is this is the kind of mind we were dealing with with Newton he could have gone there but he didn't he didn't his religiosity stopped him

And at 1:02:27 of the TAM6 video:

... so what worries me is had meaning not stopped and ceded his brilliance to God he could he easily come up with perturbation theory.

He invented calculus practically on a dare! Perturbation theoy's just an extension of calculus. It's a nice elegant extension but you know Newton could have knocked us out in an afternoon. You know this! Okay....

So my problem is not that people have invoked intelligent design brilliant people have done it before they'll keep doing it I don't have an issue with that. I really if it prevents you from making further discoveries I don't want the intelligent design person to be the one looking for the cure for Alzheimer's because they'll get to their ignorance and say well not only can I not figure this out no one else in the lab will fear no one else will ever be born we'll figure this out it is intelligently designed then that person is removed from the set of people who would solve that problem

Newton did not just stop. He invested quite a lot of time and effort on n-body perturbation theory. In particular he spent many hours trying to model the 3-body system of the earth, moon and sun. Tyson's claim is demonstrably false from the get go.

As did Leonhard Euler. I would guess Tyson and most of his fans have no idea who Euler is. Many regard Leonhard Euler as the greatest mathematician that ever lived. Laplace held that view.

As did d'Alembert and Joseph Lagrange. Perhaps some readers have heard of the Lagrange points, They should be called the Euler-Lagrange points. Euler discovered L1, 2 & 3. Lagrange discovered L4 and L5, the points leading and trailing the orbiting body by 60º.

Laplace built a model that explains the solar system's stability. But he didn't do it alone. He built on the extensive work of Newton, d'Alembert, Lagrange and Euler.

So when Tyson bellows that Newton could have whipped out Laplace's work in an afternoon -- that is Tyson's way of saying he doesn't know much about perturbation theory.

Luke Barnes did a critique of Tyson's Newton vs Laplace routine.

And all the stuff that Newton supposedly did on a dare in two months is also addled nonsense. I'll look at that later.

 

[Hop_David]

and lots of opinion but very little in the eay of factual evidence and independent sources.

I list plenty of independent sources. Examples:

I link to Jonathan Adler's piece for the Washington Post: Neil deGrasse Tyson admits he Botched Bush Quote

I link to Tyson's account of Bush's speech: Bush and Star Names.

And I link Bush's actual 9-11 speech. "Islam is Peace" was a call for tolerance and inclusion delivered from a mosque.

And "opinion"? Even after Tyson has admitted his error you say it's just my opinion that his speech was false?

You've done no more than glance at my complaints. But that doesn't stop you from making pronouncements.

 

[Hop_David]

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Tyson's stories are substantially false. It could be he trusted his source when he heard them. It doesn't mean that he intentionally concocted the stories.

I don't believe Tyson intentionally concocted falsehoods.

In my opinion his falsehoods come a strong confirmation bias, poor memory and an over active imagination.

Do not put words in my mouth.

As for credulity - well that's not a black and white state. If I accept what a NASA engineer tells me about space travel without checking his claims, does that make me credulous?

What I am complaining about here are the fictions Tyson passes off as history. Tyson is not a historian.

Further, Tyson's false histories have been debunked. That doesn't stop his credulous following from posting and reposting his fictions. That won't stop Dawkins from giving Tyson an award this October.

And finally, you've got one source (is that correct?).

Incorrect. I have many sources.

My Bush and Star Names piece includes these sources:

Tyson's account of Bush's 9-11 speech
Bush's actual 9-11 speech
A piece from The Washington Post
Tyson's admission he was wrong

I also cite sources in my pieces on Tyson's stories regarding Newton and Ghazali.

And your claims are that Tyson, all of his co-speakers, and everyone in their numerous audiences were somehow all credulous?

The "skeptics" really thought Tyson was tearing Bush a new one. They were howling with laughter. Including Dawkins. Not having a clue that Tyson was splattering them head to toe with bovine excrement.

And not just once. Tyson told these stories many, many times. Year after year after year after year...

So, yes. I do call them credulous.

 

[Hop_David]

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

I am attacking Tyson's false history as well those who endorse this source of false history.

It appears to be a cover up. At least one of his claims appears to be wrong.

Which claim?

 

[Hop_David]

And maybe the OP should look at it as well since there does appear to be some that credit al Ghazali largely with the fall of the Golden Age from a cultural viewpoint:

"Economic historian Joel Mokyr has argued that Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali (1058–1111), the author of Incoherence of the Philosophers, "was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science" and that this led to a cultural shift shunning away from scientific thinking.[150] However, it is argued that al-Ghazali was instead an admirer and adherent of philosophy but was criticizing the use of philosophy in religious matters only.[151] Additionally, Saliba (2007) has pointed out that the golden age did not slow down after al-Ghazali, who lived in the 11th century,[152][153] while others extend the golden age to around the 16th[3] to 17th centuries.[154][155][156]

Yes, Saliba is correct. And it's true there were Islamic advances in science and technology well into the 16th & 17th centuries. For example the Gunpowder Empires.

Is that supposed to refute my claim that there was plenty of Islamic innovation after 1100?

Tyson says Islamic innovation collapsed after Ghazali and hasn't recovered since.

 

[Hop_David]

As I understand it Copernicus did his work in private and did not release the results due to how it would conflict with the Church.

Incorrect. Copernicus' Commentariolus was shared with a number of bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the pope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, Saliba is correct. And it's true there were Islamic advances in science and technology well into the 16th & 17th centuries. For example the Gunpowder Empires.

Is that supposed to refute my claim that there was plenty of Islamic innovation after 1100?

Tyson says Islamic innovation collapsed after Ghazali and hasn't recovered since.

The Gunpowder Empires do not show any sign of innovation, unless it was in firearms. The Islamic world's contribution decreased rather quickly after al Ghazali. he himself appears to have abandoned the sciences and became a mystic as my earlier post showed. Perhaps all contributions did not disappear, but they were at a far far lower than earlier than that time.

 

[Augustus]

He gave you his impression. You have yours. So? This isn't dishonesty.

The point is not that he is dishonest, but that he is completely misrepresenting the views of al-Ghazali due to being largely ignorant of the subject he is discussing.

This makes him a bit hypocritical due to his stated positions on rationality and critical thinking.

It's also telling that this thread is full of "rationalists" desperate to defend him for making obvious misrepresentations.

 

[Augustus]

I find it interesting that the only people I ever see passionately arguing about how the Catholic Church didn't stifle scientific progress are Catholics.

It's pretty much the modern scholarly consensus on the topic, and is thus advocated by Protestants, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc. too.

The Conflict Thesis is generally considered untenable now in light of the evidence.

Some scholarly views:

A widespread myth that refuses to die...maintains that consistent opposition of the Christian church to rational thought in general and the natural sciences in particular, throughout the patristic and medieval periods, retarded the development of a viable scientific tradition, thereby delaying the Scientific Revolution and the origins of modern science by more than a millennium.

Historical scholarship of the past half-century demonstrates that the truth is otherwise.
David C Lindberg in the Cambridge companion to science and religion

John Heilbron, no apologist for the Vatican, got it right when he opened his book The Sun in the Church with the following words: “the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions.T”4 Heilbron’s point can be generalized far beyond astronomy. Put succinctly, the medieval period gave birth to the university, which developed with the active support of the papacy. This unusual institution sprang up rather spontaneously around famous masters in towns like Bologna, Paris, and Oxford before 1200. By 1500, about sixty universities were scattered throughout Europe. What is the significance of this development for our myth? About 30 percent of the medieval university curriculum covered subjects and texts concerned with the natural world.5 This was not a trivial development. The proliferation of universities between 1200 and 1500 meant that hundreds of thousands of students—a quarter million in the German universities alone from 1350 on—were exposed to science in the Greco-Arabic tradition. Michael H Shank

Historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. Noah J Efron

No account of Catholic involvement with science could be complete without mention of the Jesuits (officially called the Society of Jesus). Formally established in 1540, the society placed such special emphasis on education that by 1625 they had founded nearly 450 colleges in Europe and elsewhere... It is clear from the historical record that the Catholic church has been probably the largest single and longest- term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were themselves Catholic, and that several Catholic institutions and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science. Margaret J Osler

Although they disagree about nuances, today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well as Protestantism) move many early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically.4 Historians have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious re- sults; the very notion that nature is lawful, some scholars argue, was borrowed from Christian theology.5 Christian convictions also affected how nature was studied. For example, in the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine’s notion of original sin (which held that Adam’s Fall left humans implacably dam- aged) was embraced by advocates of “experimental natural phi- losophy.” As they saw it, fallen humans lacked the grace to understand the workings of the world through cogitation alone, requiring in their disgraced state painstaking experiment and ob- servation to arrive at knowledge of how nature works (though our knowledge even then could never be certain). In this way, Christian doctrine lent urgency to experiment.6

Historians have also found that changing Christian approaches to interpreting the Bible affected the way nature was studied in crucial ways. For example, Reformation leaders disparaged allegorical readings of Scripture, counseling their congregations to read Holy Writ literally. This approach to the Bible led some scholars to change the way they studied nature, no longer seeking the allegorical meaning of plants and animals and instead seeking what they took to be a more straightforward description of the material world.7 Also, many of those today considered “fore- fathers” of modern science found in Christianity legitimation of their pursuits. René Descartes (1596–1650) boasted of his physics that “my new philosophy is in much better agreement with all the truths of faith than that of Aristotle.”8 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) believed that his system restored the original divine wisdom God had provided to Moses and had no doubt that his Christianity bolstered his physics—and that his physics bolstered his Christi- anity.9 Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. Noah J Efron

 

[Augustus]

Or he did not put your spin on it

Spin? You mean quoting the actual text verbatim?

"Falling a prey to their passions, to a besotted vanity, and the wish to pass for learned men, they persist in maintaining the preeminence of mathematicians in all branches of knowledge. This is a serious evil..."

Funny how "sceptics" in this thread are so keen to defend their "teammate" when he makes obvious misrepresentations that support their ideological prejudices.


Some more AG:

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns them in the name of religion.

It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no attack on religion


Full text of "Al Ghazali Munkidh Min Al Dalal ( Deliverance From Error"


aG also notes that maths, far from being the 'devil's work' is not really relevant to the question of religion:

Mathematics comprises the knowledge of calculation, geometry, and cosmography: it has no connection with the religious sciences, and proves nothing for or against religion; it rests on a foundation of proofs which, once known and understood, can not be refuted.

Also worth noting the context of the discussion, which is explained in the preamble to the linked text:

In philosophy, Ghazali upheld the approach of mathematics and exact sciences as essentially correct. However, he adopted the techniques of Aristotelian logic and the Neoplatonic procedures and employed these very tools to lay bare the flaws and lacunas of the then prevalent Neoplatonic philosophy and to diminish the negative influences of Aristotelianism and excessive rationalism.


So, as a "sceptic", what about this do you think was a major cause of the decline in Islamic science that happened centuries after AG actually wrote this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spin? You mean quoting the actual text verbatim?

"Falling a prey to their passions, to a besotted vanity, and the wish to pass for learned men, they persist in maintaining the preeminence of mathematicians in all branches of knowledge. This is a serious evil..."

Funny how "sceptics" in this thread are so keen to defend their "teammate" when he makes obvious misrepresentations that support their ideological prejudices.


Some more AG:

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns them in the name of religion.

It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no attack on religion


Full text of "Al Ghazali Munkidh Min Al Dalal ( Deliverance From Error"


aG also notes that maths, far from being the 'devil's work' is not really relevant to the question of religion:

Mathematics comprises the knowledge of calculation, geometry, and cosmography: it has no connection with the religious sciences, and proves nothing for or against religion; it rests on a foundation of proofs which, once known and understood, can not be refuted.

Also worth noting the context of the discussion, which is explained in the preamble to the linked text:

In philosophy, Ghazali upheld the approach of mathematics and exact sciences as essentially correct. However, he adopted the techniques of Aristotelian logic and the Neoplatonic procedures and employed these very tools to lay bare the flaws and lacunas of the then prevalent Neoplatonic philosophy and to diminish the negative influences of Aristotelianism and excessive rationalism.


So, as a "sceptic", what about this do you think was a major cause of the decline in Islamic science that happened centuries after AG actually wrote this?

You mean "skeptic". Sce should be a soft c. But let's forget about how messed up British spelling is for a while. This is exactly the same sort of claim that a creationist would make when the scientific method is applied to sciences that they disagree with. To me it smacks of that sort of ignorance rather loudly. And I see you spinning it the same way the creationists spin their definition of science.

 

[Hop_David]

You bear false witness against Neil deGrasse Tyson in order to protect your Catholic religion from the charge that it was wrong and violent.

It is very easy to Google the info, and post the results for everyone to see it. But, you failed to substantiate your wild claims against Tyson.

So, I Googled the info, and will post them for everyone to see exactly what Tyson said. This info completely refutes your lies about Tyson.

Link above: Tyson said that major stars have Arab names (so President W. Bush was wrong about "our God" naming the stars." Clara Tea: Unless you consider that the Arab God is the same as our God.

Here is President Bush's actual 9-11 speech:

Bush's 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from a mosque. It was not "an attempt to distinguish we from they" as Tyson claims

Nowhere in that speech did Bush say "Our God named the stars". To my knowledge Bush has never said those words. And he has certainly never said those words to set Christians above Muslims.

Furthermore, Tyson has admitted he gave a wrong account of the speech.

I reject each and every one of your accusations.

I can't confirm Ghazali's statement that math is the work of the devil (I can't find the quote).

However, one can't say that he never said it, because that would require proving a negative.

Tyson claimed there is a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. It is his obligation to back up his claims.

However when challenged Tyson admitted that he was being misleading by mentioning the devil at all. See his reply to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is President Bush's actual 9-11 speech:

Bush's 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from a mosque. It was not "an attempt to distinguish we from they" as Tyson claims

Nowhere in that speech did Bush say "Our God named the stars". To my knowledge Bush has never said those words. And he has certainly never said those words to set Christians above Muslims.

Furthermore, Tyson has admitted he gave a wrong account of the speech.

I reject each and every one of your accusations.



Tyson claimed there is a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. It is his obligation to back up his claims.

However when challenged Tyson admitted that he was being misleading by mentioning the devil at all. See his reply to me.

His speech was figurative and not literal. It also go along with the letter that you quoted in your link.

 

[Augustus]

This is exactly the same sort of claim that a creationist would make when the scientific method is applied to sciences that they disagree with. To me it smacks of that sort of ignorance rather loudly. And I see you spinning it the same way the creationists spin their definition of science.

"The scientific method" didn't even exist when he wrote this.

To me this sounds like the answer of someone who can't be bothered to make any attempt to understand the topic he is discussing in context and just wants to believe whatever is in line with their modern prejudices.

So your best argument as a sceptic for why AG was a main cause of end of the Golden Age that happened centuries after his death is that you heard someone say it, but can't explain the mechanism by which it happened?

 

[Hop_David]

I had to see where the quote about al Ghazali came from. It was not an actual quote but a paraphrase from this speech by Tyson if you want to hear the quote go to the 6:45 mark:

He actually says "So out of his work, you get the philosophy that Mathematics is the work of the devil".

In another talks Tyson says:

... 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 in yet another talk:

..in that text included the assertion which gained influence socially but then politically so then it had power of influence in there was the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil. The entire enterprise collapsed and never recovered it has not recovered since.

So, yeah, Tyson does pretty explicitly put those words in Ghazali's mouth.

You keep on saying demonstrably false stuff with a great deal of confidence.

It is not 100% accurate, but it is definitely not 100% wrong. He then goes on to say that that was the beginning of the collapse of "what Islam was and would become the entire philosophical enterprise collapse and it has not recovered since." He was saying that in context of how the Islamic world had gone from being the major leader in intellectual thought in the sciences to almost being a total nonparticipant. He was not wrong in that regard.

Nope, not the beginning of a collapse. Just collapse. A collapse at 1100 when evidently all Muslims rejected math.

He also uses other images suggesting a sudden decline like "cut the kneecaps out of".

There wasn't a sudden decline in 1100. There wasn't even a decline so far as I can see. Al Tusi the mathematician and astronomer came afterwards. Abu al Hasan, the father of symbolic algebra, was born more than three centuries after Ghazali's death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The scientific method" didn't even exist when he wrote this.

To me this sounds like the answer of someone who can't be bothered to make any attempt to understand the topic he is discussing in context and just wants to believe whatever is in line with their modern prejudices.

So your best argument as a sceptic for why AG was a main cause of end of the Golden Age that happened centuries after his death is that you heard someone say it, but can't explain the mechanism by which it happened?

Sometimes it is best to trust the experts in the field rather than a nobody on a forum. I never claimed to be an expert. In this case i will go with them.

 

[Hop_David]

I find it interesting that the only people I ever see passionately arguing about how the Catholic Church didn't stifle scientific progress are Catholics.

There are a lot of historians debunking the garbage history Tyson and his ilk have been spreading. I don't think Seb Falk's a Catholic. Thony Christie is an atheist.

I find it interesting that you can't see beyond your very narrow reality bubble.

 

[Augustus]

Sometimes it is best to trust the experts in the field rather than a nobody on a forum. I never claimed to be an expert. In this case i will go with them.

By "experts" you mean the single economic historian quoted on wikipedia whose quote is followed by numerous criticisms of his position from other scholars who specialise more in Islamic history?

The expert who devoted a grand total of 8 sentences to AG in his book?

You will just take it on faith that this guy is correct?

Scepticism is indeed alive and kicking!

 

[Hop_David]

Are you annoyed at Tyson for making errors in presentations,

To support his New Atheist narrative Tyson has straight up invented false histories. I'm not just annoyed, I'm angry.

or at the audience of those presentations not fact-checking his every word in real time?

Tyson has been repeating his false histories over and over again for decades. His following has been posting and reposting his false histories. I came to this forum because one of the participants here was aggressively attacking someone who openly admired Ghazali. He was attacking him with Tyson's false claims regarding Hamid al Ghazali.

Maybe Dawkins could be excused for swallowing Tyson's bovine excrement at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference. But by now he should have a clue that Tyson is full of it.

And yet Dawkins will be giving Tyson an award this October at a "skeptic" conference in Las Vegas.

Are current affairs and history Tyson's specialist fields?

No. But that does not prevent Tyson from stating his addled speculation as fact. The man is comfortable speaking confidently on subjects he knows nothing about.

Do you believe that sceptics cannot make mistakes, or be misinformed, or be dishonest?

A true skeptic makes it a habit to challenge claims and assumptions to see if they're supported by evidence. And I do indeed believe such skeptics are less vulnerable to misinformation. But they are human with human failings

However Tyson does not practice this. Tyson preaching skepticism and critical thinking skills is like an adulterous Republican preaching family values.

Astrophysics isn't my field so I am not really familiar with his work. Do his mistakes in other areas have a bearing on it? Are you suggesting that his scientific papers may be similarly flawed and the peer-reviewing somehow substandard?

I'm not that familiar with his peer reviewed papers. I know he counted nova in the galactic bulge for his doctoral dissertation. He has been the lead author of a small handful of peer reviewed papers in the late 80s and early 90s. He has done very little astrophysics research in the past three decades.

Have you checked the checking of his claims? Have you ensured that all the articles you are citing are 100% accurate and in good faith?
And has anyone then checked your checking of that checking?
Thanks.

I do make misteaks. It's possible some of my criticisms are unwarranted. I invite you to check my work. Maybe you will find errors.

 

[Rival]

I find it interesting that the only people I ever see passionately arguing about how the Catholic Church didn't stifle scientific progress are Catholics.

I'm not a Catholic and I argue the exact same.....

Because its true.