Anyone else sick of seeing this guy paraded around like a scientist?

Why does he feel the need to always tweet about shit he knows nothing about?

woah, get a load of this badass. i don't see any brilliant solutions coming from you, genius.

t. vsauce connoisseur

He gets paid lots of money to talk about things he knows nothing about. Maybe his phone makes a "ka-ching" sound every time he tweets.

Stop being so jelly, LLUL

Are you implying one needs a PhD to be a published, employed scientist?

Also, who cares if he's got a doctorate, he's done more for science than most scientists.

Bondage, Sadism, and Masochism

this.

he probably thinks about all the cash he will get every time he opens hi mouth.
I would do it too if I got some good cah for it (I assume because he is known worldwide).

>he's done more for science than most scientists.
yeah dude, pass dat bong. XXDDD

Libfag detected. You're on the wrong web site.

Yeah, he came to my University once. All he did was try to push political agenda. He knew very little about frontier science. What a sellout!
Not surprised. I did a some research on his background. All he has a a bachelor's degree in ME and went to work for Disney as an entertainer.

Because people who are actually good at science and math don't usually go for a TV career

What all did he talk about?

"Change the world!"
"Change the world!"
"Change the world!"
"Change the world!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Here's a cool picture of a Mars rover!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Change the world!"
"Woah!"
"Woah!"
"Awesome!"

Go back to /pol/, you drooling dumbfuck.

That is pretty underwhelming. To be fair he was just a children's show host and now that those kids grew up they think he still is the science guy.

Exactly. Most of the people that adore him were liberal arts majors or science majors that haven't met him in person.
/thread

>Dawkins
>Any significant research at all

I think the public figures like Nye and Tyson are important. while they don't contribute anything in the way of research they do get the general public interested in science. It may seem stupid to people that visit Veeky Forums but normies need them to explain obvious stuff to them and to get them excited about science. whether you like it or not normies do influence science, so it's important to keep them informed.

He's a shill, SJW, and cuck.

He gets like $35,000 speaker fees.

He shills the whole "MUH WOMEN NEED TO BE IN SCIENCE(even though nobody has literally ever stopped them and therefore it is entirely their own fault and they clearly just don't want to do it) TOO!!!

He doesn't know shit basically, just as all of these popular science dweebs know jack shit.

They all write a book every 3-5 years, go back to one of their three houses because they're just in it for the money, and post on twitter about shit they don't know anything about and make dumb people think they're smart, who then buy their new book.

They're all bullshit. I see through them, and they can go fuck themselves.

> normies do influence science
How do normies influence science?

>He has a bachelor's in engineering yet is made out to be PhD level
Implying you need a Ph.D to be a scientist. What is with Veeky Forums and scholastic elitism? If it weren't for this guy, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in science growing up. He got me interested in chem in the first place.

SJW detected

Consider the following: normies influenced the shit outta science when they threw a hissy fit over stem cell research. How far back did it set that field?

more "normies" that are into science and the more it manifests ourselves in pop culture, the more politicians will see science programs as public-friendly more apt to spend money.

Corporations too.

they vote the politicians in and the politicians influence how government money is spent and who gets funding.

You don't need a PhD to be a scientist. Getting a PhD only gets you waaaay closer to the expensive equipment you need to do high level shit. As other people have been saying, there is a lot to be said for him inspiring kids. I watched him all the time when I was young, thought he was awesome, knew I wanted to do science all my life, and now I'm getting a PhD in chemistry myself.

He was a major influence on recent graduates. Who cares if he has a PhD or not?

That is a double-edged sword. When things in science don't align to what normies "feel" is true, you get crazy post-modern ideas, influenced by science, but far from anything empirical.

You must be new here

Anything that's unpopular gets shunned while other ideas that aren't offensive to the government or normiea get funding. You've never seen a popular study that goes against the constant global warming or smoking-related fearmongering because of it.

I thought Bill Nye was alright, I watched him a bit in my childhood. But after this youtube.com/watch?v=k0kgIHxkMS8 , I'm done. He was already starting to become unhinged but now he is totally discredited.

He's just a tool now. I liked his show as a kid as well. It's sad. I think Tyson is better. He doesn't push politics as much as Bill.

amazing how dozens of people can make their who careers out of banality and circlejerking on tv about how much better than those obvious retarded 0.001% of the population. the audience gets to join in too!

>implying reddit isn't the most trump-fag infested place on le internet
get back to r/The_Donald

He's certainly done more than this shitposter

kek

...

I'm glad we don't have mongs like him where I live
the only 'public scientist' we have is director of princeton or something

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

Bill Nye the Science guy! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!

Bi-i-i-il nyethe sci-ence-guy-uy,

bi-bi-bi-bill nyethe sci-ence guyyyyyy

desuahobakaniichan

He's a promoter of the scientific method and an autodidactic researcher.
Technically, you don't have to have a degree or lab to be a scientist.
Scientist is actually an ambiguous term for someone that promotes or utilizes the scientific method.
Scientist, researcher, doctor of science, professor, professional, etc...
These are all different terms with very different meanings.
Don't get it twisted.

1.) Although evolution is a scientific fact, the specifics of it are still being hotly debated.
>eg; how much random chance plays a part in the process, epigenetics, nature becomes nurture and vice versa

2.) There were some serious issues with early vaccinations that left people crippled. The paranoia was justified, although no longer.

3.) 50% of climate change claims have been proven incorrect and dramatised. 30 years ago they were talking about the New Ice Age and 20 years ago they were talking about the Ozone Hole.
It's an infallible fact humans do less damage than cattle to the climate.
This has been scientifically measured and no scientist disagrees with it.

A real scientist would be completely aware of all these absolute facts.
You're an "internet propagandist" social climber, nothing more.
I bet you don't even know how scientific review works.

Most scientists like him. He literally only echos the accepted scientific thinking. He rarely speaks outside of his depth and instills good values in the public. You do't need a Ph.D. to be smart or understand science and the only people who insist this is an issue are his critics outside of science.

Because he's a great science communicator. Whats your problem with that?

Aren't a lot of those cattle there because of we humans? That kind of lumps their climate impact in with us, in my opinion.

Oh, LOTS of people have stopped women from getting into science, the same way they used to stop women getting into top-level orchestras.
I am not sure if he knows shit, but you certainly do.

>scientist
>a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Where is the PhD prerequisite mentioned here? I can't find it.

youtube.com/watch?v=yy7GOO7Y96Y

This pisses me off more than bowtie man ever did.
I hate mainstream American media with such a burning fucking passion.

fatknowledge.blogspot.fi/2006/11/humans-in-charge-of-98-of-terrestrial.html

youtu.be/4Q_mY54hjM0?t=10m30s

John R. Horner spent 7 years as an undergrad and never even got his B.S., but he's still a damn amazing paleontologist.

not only do normies influence policy and therefore funding, but occasionally they or their children are so inspired by the wonders of the natural world that they up and study science themselves.

Probably b8, but I'll take it.
1. You just vomited out a string of words that make no sense. Evolution is ENTIRELY driven by random chance; where do you think that variation comes from? RANDOM mutation! Epigenetics isn't related that closely to evolution; maybe you're thinking of epistasis? Anyway, the point is that Darwin and Wallace had the fundamental facts straight; the only real debate is "which of these forcings is driving this observed change".

2. Care to cite some examples? You may be thinking of people paralyzed from poliomyelitis, which was...one of the first diseases WIDELY PREVENTED by vaccination programs.

3. 50% of climate change claims? How do you quantify that?
And you're just parroting back the same old denier memes now. No, there wasn't a consensus of cooling back in the 1970s; scientists then predicted warming for the most part, and a few studies predicting cooling IFF we didn't do something about aerosol emissions (which we did) were overreported on by the media. The ozone hole was and is a thing, but that has little to do with global warming and is mostly just an issue of chlorofluorocarbons being used as aerosol propellants.

>It's an infallible fact humans do less damage than cattle to the climate.
>This has been scientifically measured and no scientist disagrees with it.
okay now this is DEFINITELY b8. 7/10, made me mad.

goddammit pauadfaslla sstttopp it owww owww oww stopppp fdsfuck ibsfds mesllttttttinnnnggg

So you were unaware of world events, and react angrily when your ignorance is rubbed in your face?

What did he mean by this?

This is obviously satire.

>Paula Deen
>lightly frying anything
>shitposting on Veeky Forums
>my life is pathetic

Billy is a swinger, clearly

...

He also makes other claims that are far worse supported, such as wishful thinking about the equality of all humans, not only concerning rights but also concerning potential and capability. In the nature vs. nurture debate, he's firmly in camp nurture.

A bachelor's degree means you learned about a subject. That means jack shit. A Ph.D is proof that you can expand your field in an independent and novel way.

Sure, in theory. In reality, many people just add epsilon to a small part of the field.

Having written a PhD on the chemistry of a certain slime mold wouldn't have made Bill Nye any more of an authority than he is today, except on the issue of the chemistry of slime molds.

I'll reiterate: He'd have proven he can expand his field without being held by the hand like a measly undergrad. A Ph.D. is not about the specific topic you studied (although it helps when claiming expertise), but acts as a general signifier of research ability. You could research slime molds, so you can also research any other shitty niche.

With a PhD though you've proven you can take the scientific method and do your own research. Also you could defend your findings from other scientists, which is no easy task.

I think he's expanded more fields through his educational work than he could ever have done in phd research. His TV show first aired over 20 years ago and there are Ph.Ds out there working right now who were partly inspired by his show.

That said I think he really hasn't done much of worth since then and that he should stop talking out his ass about things he knows nothing about.

Do I even need to say "the C word"

> most of the people that made major contributions to the advancement of the human race, including scientific advances, don't have a Phd
> if you don't have a Phd you aren't smart

why are you discussing this when you clearly didn't pass Logic & Reasoning l in your first undergraduate semester?

this so much
academia is fucking overrated

Not him, but at my school he talked about his Astronomy club, sundials (shit ton of sundials), and changing the world.

I enjoyed seeing him.

I think he answered someone's question about fighting duck sized horses or a horse sized duck

People forget that he worked on the Mars Rover.

At what point did you realize you wrote a fucking stupid comment? Was it the moment you defended the video, you pinnacle of "intelligence".

I think it matters when a engineer is being pushed by the media as a scientist to preach propaganda

Why? Most people couldn't care less.
And he's not. He's a science guy.
It's from his days being a stand up comedian

you can't /thread your own comment m8

>popularity
My God, you're right. Everything is about popularity to the scientifically illiterate. It all depends on their feelings. What a fragile world we live in where as long as people will "feel" something is right or wrong, it will be made so.

Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist. He hasn't contributed anything to particular field (he did build some sort of pressure suppressor for a 747) and is now seen as the modern "face of science" in a sort of memey joke. There are plenty of scientists that are currently doing great research that no one will ever hear of because people are too obsessed with the guy that helped them get out of middle school science class than actual scientific research.

pol was right, the nose knows

>why is he considered one?
>has BS
>better looking than you OP

>>has BS
yup he's full of it.

>He only has a BS
>I'll soon have 2 BSs and a BA
Looks like I'm twice as good as him

>has three degrees
>can't do multiplication

Found the /pol/.

9/10 would mad again

It was a casual joke about BAs more than anything. Grade padding is what it was.

Since when does having sex with multiple women make someone a cuck?

To be fair, he's right.

We should see half scientists be female and half be male, but be based on merit. That is to say, ideally, we should see both performing and aspiring towards the same thing with regards to science.

Is this before or after you found out you didn't know whats been going on in Syria, and reacted angrily when you realized a popsci guy knows more than you?

>To be fair, he's right.
To be fair he isn't and neither are you. Sexual dimorphism is a thing, and its sphere of influence is both biological and psychological.

Except it shouldn't be as bad as it is today.
The average male might be a couple IQ points higher than the average female, but there's still plenty of women smarter than you.

>Sexual dimorphism is a thing
It's very small in humans. The fact that things like gender ratio in science vary enormously between countries should be a pretty big clue that this is primarily a cultural thing, not a biological one.

>Except it shouldn't be as bad as it is today.
Why, exactly? There shouldn't be any appreciable change in genetics due to the fact selective pressure doesn't exist anymore. There is no reason for women to "get smarter," or men to, "get dumber." And a, "couple of points," can mean the difference between understanding a vital scientific concept or not, anyway.

>There are women smarter than you!
I love how you immediately go for the individual/averages bait-and-switch fallacy.

>It's small in humans.
No it isn't.

>It varies enormously between countries...
Yeah, that proves the sub-speciation of humans, as well. It doesn't not disprove sexual dimorphism.

>It's cultural...
Again, no, considering how much culture changes in the last fifty years. If it were so you'd see drastic changes between men and women, yet we do not. Only attitudes. Not psychology or biology.

>Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist.
>and is now seen as the modern "face of science" in a sort of memey joke.
He's a science educator, which is still a very import thing.

>There are plenty of scientists that are currently doing great research that no one will ever hear of because people are too obsessed with the guy that helped them get out of middle school science class than actual scientific research.
Are you seriously going to try and claim that the reason that the general public doesn't care about current research is that someone tried to explain basic science to them on the TV?
That doesn't make any fucking sense at all.

>the fact selective pressure doesn't exist anymore.
Where are you getting this shit from?

>And a, "couple of points," can mean the difference between understanding a vital scientific concept or not, anyway.
The IQ variation between genders is far smaller than the IQ variation between practising scientists.

>No it isn't.
Yes it is. The difference between genders in psychological tests is generally very small. Even small external (often cultural) factors can overwhelm it.

>Yeah, that proves the sub-speciation of humans, as well.
You can't be fucking serious.

>Again, no, considering how much culture changes in the last fifty years. If it were so you'd see drastic changes between men and women, yet we do not
We DO see massive changes in gender ratios in many jobs over the last fifty years.

>Only attitudes. Not psychology or biology.
What? Why would you expect to see biological changes on that timescale?