Is he right?
Is he right?
Christopher Scott
Other urls found in this thread:
Ryder Edwards
It will be confusing since the word "faction" already has meaning.
Austin Robinson
Silly thread. No need to comment on such things. That man is irrelevant.
Please go away and do not come back.
Luke Davis
Has this guy actually contributed to science in any real way or is he just meme celebrity pop figure like Dawkins, Einstein, and Sagan?
Jayden Morris
Dawkins and Einstein did contribute though but I'm responding to bait
Wyatt Robinson
Neil deGrasse Tyson genuinely seems to have a good sense of humour when it comes to television appearances, interviews and cameos, but his twitter feed just seems like buzzkill central.
Asher Walker
pretty sure all three of those actually contributed to Science.
Logan White
Einstein contributed a lot.
Dawkins and Sagan made pretty average contributions. The 'biggest' contribution of Dawkins was memetics, which ended up being a big flaw which no one takes seriously anymore, and the idea of the extended phenotype, which is actually useful and interesting. As for the selfish gene, it had been theorized before his book was written, by other scientists. Sagan did some relevant work with space exploration, but he really didn't do more than other hundreds of scientists whose names are completely unknown today, except for being a pop star.
Owen James
Fiction => Fictive
Faction => Fact
Mind BLOWN
But the problem is not all non-fiction is based on facts.
Daniel Campbell
>not all non-fiction is factual
Such as?