Pop-Sci is more damaging to science than religious fundamentalism or conservativism

I went from a waiter to a PhD because of vsauce

>gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.

You act as if there is something inherently wrong with that. Civilization would not exist if everybody was a scientist. Society needs all sorts of individuals to function properly. Someone has to build things, others must work in service industries. You seem to imply that no scientist ever takes a superficial interest in something simply because they might find it interesting. I used to think like you, but then I realized I had to get off of my high horse.

haha whoa i love science bro xd

Pop-sci gets money into science by causing positive feedback from taxpayers when tax money goes into certain popularized spheres of science. This positive feedback than causes ruling class invest more in said field due to votes or some other shit you guys in democratic countries have.

"pop sci, it's the gateway paradigm to real science"
that's how fucking dumb you sound right now

>Someone has to build things, others must work in service industries
Bullshit. We gonna automate all of that.

I think for kids it does. But not some shitty venerated popsci figures and youtube videos.

Post-Modernism was created by the US to fight communism.

Precisely wrong.

Factually wrong.

No, it isn't.

no it doesn't.

kids who are interested in science will watch popsci shows anyway because it's the only thing they have access to (no mathematical tools) and it feeds their curiosity.

it won't make a kid who's not interested in science become interested in science.

you're fake news.

Cargo-cult science isn't popular science. The obvious takaway from your numerous errors is that you need:
- a dictionary
- a logic class

False.

>you're fake news.
Back to /pol/ brainlet.

>spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman

maybe you should. Because when you say things like
>factually wrong
with nothing to back it up, you're quite literally fake news. Which is the domain of /pol/.

The kind of nonsense Sokal talked about has nothing to do with the "I fucking love science" crows

Good luck automating a guy climbing up my roof and cleaning my chimney, retard.
What's getting automated is all the bullshit office jobs.

>chimney
why do ameritards still use 10th century technology?

No, but it was funded for that reason.

I'll bite. I agree if you make science appear too "cool" many people who aren't actually interested in it deeply but are interested in the coolness factor may gain an interest, the scientific community is already kinda fucked up and dumb and pretentious.

There may be a level of validity in your statement though.

There is nothing wrong with saying this, I have a PhD in physics and say this. People thinking they're geniuses for watching vsauce and understanding none of it can become a problem though.

Why would this be a problem?

Aggressive retards who believe they're highly intelligent. They'll believe they're smart enough to make judgements which affect other peoples lives. Often making decisions which are insane, evil and only make peoples lives worse.

Example/Citation: Roughly 50% of Veeky Forums

Where are you seeing people who think they are geniuses because of watching, reading, or listening to "popsci"? In middle school? At McDonald's? Everything popsci tends to lean left, or at least compared to what conservatives would believe, it does. So if there's this wave of non-intellectuals who are going around saying "vaccines are good! Crispr help humanity cure disease! Our atmosphere is changing rapidly!" Yet they can't explain it, who cares, they are doing good. I donate money regularly to MSF and the Red Cross...does that mean I'm a bad person because I'm not a medical doctor? If dumb people are interested in your field, nothing changes; they get to pretend that they are smart among their dumb friends and you can continue your research in your newly funded-by-idiots research grant.

Watching modern cosmos series like furrrkkkkk this is retarded the explanations seems supra philosophical alot of the time where's the education TV networks

Pop-Sci wouldn't be quite as bad if it wasn't for about 4 or 5 personalities involved with it right now.

Troop furrrkkkkk vaccines inject you with dead version of genetically altered viruses I'd rather catch the modern cold than have injected.

Considering "Pop-sci" as it conventionally is defined nowadays didn't exist until the last two decades... Probably not? But that's because those people who would have been kids around the time that pop-sci would have influenced them aren't old enough yet to have made any legitimate contributions to science. And, pretending for a second that they were, it's not like most peoples' recognition as "Successful scientists" happen during their earlier years. It all comes later.

So yeah. Pop-science can be annoying sometimes, but if you're genuinely just trying to give the public some general knowledge about scientific methodologies and concepts, it's pretty harmless. I'm a dual major in physics and astronomy and I'll outright admit that "Pop-science" was a decently-sized part of what got me interested in the topics when I was younger.

Let's all just try to spread good knowledge and help each other.

Which ones? They all appear decent to me.

Nobody can be this dumb

Back to /pol/, Tardboy.

Like I care

>They all appear decent to me.
Enough said.

This

There might be ones I don't know who actually are terrible. What Pop-scientist do you have a problem with. If it was the youtube ones, they don't appear to be doing anything wrong but I would see why someone might think that.

Very condescending and unreasonable. I of course shouldn't expect better from Veeky Forums, but still. Just tell him.

nothing is damaging to science
after it all goes up in flames, once the smoke clears, only those who embrace science will remain

It is not. You're saying that because you're a cuckservative.
Pop-sci won't keep science from advancing, conservatism and religion will. If anything, it will make science more popular and create misconceptions that will quickly be explained, as the scientific way of thinking will make people more open to changing their views.

Bill Nye is the lamest, most silly personality in Pop-Sci right now. Tyson is no better. And even Krauss, despite being a real scientist, is dumbing things down too much. Those are three of the main problems right there.

I disagree.

People in America vote for whatever's popular. If it takes some goofballs making science look "cool" in order for them to not vote for orange retards, I'm for it. Will it actually make new scientists? I doubt it. But it's more about generating more public interest and getting more government funding as a result.

While it hasn't really created any geniuses in the field, I don't think the purpose of popsci is to "get people interested in science", at least not in that context.

I don't like Tyson or Nye but their rationale is to just educate the general population. They only want to try to enlighten people who are too stupid to actually study anything themselves, and to at least inform them about how amazing the universe is.

Why is it damaging other than what said? A few retarded elitists who think they're physicists after watching an episode of Tysons show are hardly that big of a problem. I mean, just look at where we are.

>their rationale is to just educate the general population.
Too bad they're not doing so.

>Bill Nye
Don't know enough about him so i won't judge
>Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a real scientist
This meme has been disproven on multiple occasions and doesn't need to be disproven again, he is a published astrophysicist and has been for decades.
>Krauss
I don't know enough about him to judge but at the same time are you really complaining about him "dumbing things down?" Its not that big of a deal most people on watching TV will not know what a dimension is and dumbing things down is better than sounding like you're talking gibberish.

I can't say the same for everybody, but I studied basic physics in highschool, and I pursued a career in engineering after thoroughly enjoying what I learned. I wish that I studied physics, but science videos have definetly maintained my interest in the field.

I'm not learning anything from these videos no doubt, but it is at least maintaining my interest and keeping me somewhat up to date with what's happening in science.

I can't actually say whether or not it sparks interest I suppose, because I don't have any examples. But it seems logical I would say that if people are interested by what they see, they would want to learn more. Again, not the case for everybody, but at least somebody like me. I'm tempted to go back to university and pursue a master's in physics, so that should say enough.

>This meme has been disproven on multiple occasions and doesn't need to be disproven again, he is a published astrophysicist and has been for decades.
I'm not saying that he's not a scientist, but rather that his personality is not the greatest thing for Pop-sci. I don't feel that he's serious enough.

True.

quick rundown for any rock dwellers
>Be Bill Nye, 1990s
>be Science Guy
>BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL
>teach kids about matter, beginner kinetics, elements n sheeit
>be respected as quality informal hands-on educator
>inspire many kids to pursue STEM
(thanks pre-MK-Ultra Bill)
>fast forward 20 years, 2017
>be Bill Nye
>get MK Ultra'd
>forget there are only two genders
>endorse sex junk n sheeit
>if it feels good it must be good what even are chromosomes
>burn credibility in 5 minutes flat
end

I don't think this is necessarily due to MK Ultra, but I will admit having that woman on his show was a very bad idea. Why should be be hated forever for it?

>religious fundamentalism

Religious fundamentalism claims to have revealed knowledge from a higher power, usually a creator deity or one of its messengers and these revelations are the "be all and end all" to knowledge. Science is the systematic search for knowledge. Science does not take claims by faith. It requires all claims to be rigorously tested and verify. The two are incompatible.

Tyson and Dawkins are hacks who barely done any work in science.

>I don't think this is necessarily due to MK Ultra

Guys, what the fuck is happening to this board? I'm scared of what it's become.

>pop science and conservativism

The two major science issues with conservativism is creationism and anthropogenic global warming. Creationism is from the social conservatives and their unholy alliance with religious fundamentalism. The other issue is a backlash against how pop science wants to address the issue of AGW. At its most fundamental level, AGW is essentially certain human activities put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and causes the planet to retain more heat, which raises the average global temperature and alters the climate. So, either reducing greenhouse gas emissions or use geoengineering to artificially lower the average global temperature. This would have an effect on energy since much of it comes from burning hydrocarbons, and anything that effects energy would have an effect on our modern economy. Having said that, pop-sci isn't helping and are making the issue more divisive. Pop-sci is as intertwine with the far left as religious fundamentalism is to the far right. Bill Nye, a pop scientist, wants to address AGW by redistributing wealth with a carbon tax and reduce birth rates in the Western nations. He then attacks nuclear energy and claimed it's too dangerous and said wind and solar only. Wealth redistribution has more do with socialism and communism than the environment. Also, birth rates in Western nations are already below replacement rates and the population is growing only because of immigration (and I doubt Nye is a supporter of Trump's wall). The deaths per energy produced (deaths/Tw*h) for nuclear is comparable to wind and rooftop solar. Bill Nye wants to solve AGW but will only accept the solutions that are acceptable to the far left. This, rightfully, invoke the wrath of conservatives, even those who believe in AGW.

>The two major science issues with conservativism is creationism and anthropogenic global warming. Creationism is from the social conservatives and their unholy alliance with religious fundamentalism. The other issue is a backlash against how pop science wants to address the issue of AGW. At its most fundamental level, AGW is essentially certain human activities put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and causes the planet to retain more heat, which raises the average global temperature and alters the climate. So, either reducing greenhouse gas emissions or use geoengineering to artificially lower the average global temperature. This would have an effect on energy since much of it comes from burning hydrocarbons, and anything that effects energy would have an effect on our modern economy. Having said that, pop-sci isn't helping and are making the issue more divisive. Pop-sci is as intertwine with the far left as religious fundamentalism is to the far right. Bill Nye, a pop scientist, wants to address AGW by redistributing wealth with a carbon tax and reduce birth rates in the Western nations. He then attacks nuclear energy and claimed it's too dangerous and said wind and solar only. Wealth redistribution has more do with socialism and communism than the environment. Also, birth rates in Western nations are already below replacement rates and the population is growing only because of immigration (and I doubt Nye is a supporter of Trump's wall). The deaths per energy produced (deaths/Tw*h) for nuclear is comparable to wind and rooftop solar. Bill Nye wants to solve AGW but will only accept the solutions that are acceptable to the far left. This, rightfully, invoke the wrath of conservatives, even those who believe in AGW.
what's the tl;dr?

stupid people are stupid and global warming and stuff lol

Sources

Bill Nye: ‘We need’ a carbon tax to ‘redistribute wealth’
youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

Bill Nye: Should we penalize parents for having ‘extra kids’?
nypost.com/2017/04/26/bill-nye-should-we-penalize-parents-for-having-extra-kids/

Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates
forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2012/10/16/warning-bell-for-developed-countries-declining-birth-rates/#25b230583641

Deaths per Tw*h
nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/our-world-in-data-also-confirms-nextbigfuture-deaths-per-twh.html
ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy/

>I don't think this is necessarily due to MK Ultra
That was meant as a jest to imply a radical shift in what content this individual was promoting. I believe he is a homosexual though. which may have had something to do with it.
>Why should be be hated forever for it?
Hate is a strong word. Disgust, detest, distrust perhaps those fit better. I get the sense you might actually read this link, so here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World

You can draw your own conclusions about the nature of this program, but it's intended as influential rather than informational, and is no longer objective in nature like his previous show. Someone who had not been exposed to hardsci education, or logic seeing this show for the first time, has the potential to draw incorrect conclusions in a field we cannot afford to be touchy feely in.

Slogans like "science doesn't care about your feelings" are bandied about by the viewers of programs like these, failing to realize they are the ones who have lost objectivity.

So? Is it a problem if Joe from Starbucks has a basic grasp of quantum levitation? Is It better for him to have zero knowledge? What difference does it make?

Real scientists will continue to do real science and what Joe public does or does not know has very little effect on anything.

You know Dawkins coined the word meme right? That's more work right there than you will ever accomplish.

>very little effect on anything.
a mob of the uninformed is an incredibly, incredibly dangerous thing. mobs of the uninformed lead to shit like you see in Idiocracy. Or Africa.

>Is It better for him to have zero knowledge?
Yes.

What is your suggestion for educating the general population?

source?

For casuals climate change is a religion and that is damaging to actual climate science and policy.
yeah but for every action there is an equal or greater counter reaction. Think Trump would have won otherwise?

>"Why should be be hated forever for it?"
>He hasn't seen the reddit AMA threads

I don't know about MKUltra, but I really do think he's beginning to suffer from either alzheimers or dementia.

Jesus fucking christ... Why is this creepy, old, unpublished sex-pest in this position?

STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT MKULTRA BILL NYE WASNT KIDNAPPED BY THE CIA AND MKULTRA'D JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY IM FUCKING AUTISTIC AND THIS IS TRIGGERING THE SHIT OUT OF ME

Vsauce is at least genuinely interested in what he's discussing, and does ample research before creating videos. He's beyond pop-sci imo, since he makes a concerted attempt to properly explain the phenomena he's interested in. Meanwhile, places like "I Fucking Love Science" post cringe-worthy facebook memes that kids regurgitate to make themselves feel knowledgeable. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if most if IFLS didn't consist of memes and t-shirt advertisements, along with blog articles written by pothead, vaguely interested NEETs who are copy-pasting the pop-sci du jour they find on google.

He shouldn't have replied that way but I see 10 trillion times worse on Veeky Forums everyday to such an extent where I often have to leave Veeky Forums to keep my sanity. People on Veeky Forums being bothered by this is bizarre. Almost every thread on Veeky Forums right now is worse than bill's reply.

he was a great elementary-middle school level science teacher, very engaging and entertaining. He could be brought in to teach world wide for a cheap VHS tape, so that your hungover Communications degree teacher could sit in the corner drinking coffee. Problem is most people didn't take science past that point, so defer to their old de facto elementary school teacher.

A high school drop out pretending to be a physicist on Veeky Forums isn't the same as a respected science communicator who is treated as an authority by some people that spews out stuff like this.

>they'd spiral into the nucleus and be annihilated
Either I'm retarded, or he shouldn't even be allowed to answer these questions.

>sex-pest
Because he talks about it and is an old dude? I kinda hate the fact that if you don't have a certain type of look and talk about sex you're
considered creepy as fuck.

Who has he pestered for sex?

Coaxing kids into talking about handies, power bottoms, and fleshlights after you've tricked their parents into trusting you alone with them is pretty sex-pesty, my dude.

>If things were any other way, things would be different.

HIS NEW SHOW WASNT FOR KIDS YOU STUPID FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. GO FUCKING DIE

>I kinda hate the fact that if you don't have a certain type of look and talk about sex you're considered creepy as fuck
t. creepy as fuck

the whole deal with Bill is he looks walks talks and dresses like a closeted faggot and will probably come out sooner or later. his promotion of that bizarre and perverted Jewish singer kinda pulled the curtain away... most shows now have an agenda like this

>WASNT FOR KIDS
[citation needed]

Also, who presents a show for adults like that? Was it made for mentally handicapped adults who still play with Duplo blocks or what?

Oh fuck. It's a language virus. This place is fucked beyond repair.

someone look what categories that show is recommended under, it might be on netflix... if it pops up as "family friendly" or "children's" or "educational" I would not be surprised.

>Genres: Stand-up Comedy and Talk Shows

The only man behind the curtain in this situation is yourself.

Just because you opted out of society doesn't mean it didn't continue without you.

It also has a TV-14 rating which is the most mature rating you can get on something broadcasted on a cable channel.

I agree with most of what you said, but none of that IFLS garbage affects the real world. Nobody in my years of study or lab work has ever mentioned that page, and the only people sharing it are, like you said, loser potheads who don't make a contribution either way. If some company wants to rip off idiots then, by all means, let them. Let the plebians be plebians and the real scientists do work.

I have a few colleagues in my department that share IFLS memes. I fucking hate them.

>t. butt blasted that someone insulted muh hero

Why would anybody hate Richard Dawkins? I don't understand it. He's one of the only on the left that actually don't turn a blind eye to the horrific misogyny, homophobia and justification of genocide in the tenants of Islam, while also harshly criticizing Christianity and Judaism.

This is stupid. Everything is pop-sci. Even the most reputed journals have literal kindergarten-tier mistakes in their papers.

Example: I was reading an anthro paper about the evolution of lactase persistence. Paper claimed that milk was a good source of vitamin D, which made it evolutionarily beneficial. A fucking 5 year old could do a google search and tell you that's wrong.

On the same topic, confusing lactase persistence with tolerance with specific eurocentric alleles for the trait. very low IQ.

>Pop-Sci is more damaging to science than religious fundamentalism or conservativism.
A bit of Pop-Sci is good.

Too much sci is worse than Pop-Sci.
Most majors at college and even the entire grade school have at least token STEM focus such that it creates all kinds of half-wits, intellectual noise, and even a sort of "familiarity breeds contempt" attitude towards science in general.

Another problem with too much science is they must find jobs and often there are not enough of the right kind, so we get bullshit studies, $ lobbying, and other questionable output from the science world.