Billions

Has there ever been a more based popular scientist?

Would he be the first to call out today's "popular scientists" as charlatans if he were still alive?

Attached: Carl.jpg (1024x768, 83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Controversy
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Attached: ;D.png (938x823, 94K)

I heard he was a bit of a cunt, but I still really like his books. He wrote them in a way that got you really into it and kept you reading, like he was having a conversation with you.

Sagan was another meme scientist who tricked the government into funding go nowhere projects like SETI and wasting millions of tax dollars.

SETI is like playing the lottery.
Its a waste of time and money until you win.

It seems like a fruitless endeavor until you look at the US's welfare program and realize you'd rather set stacks of money on fire than give any more money to welfare queens with filthy litters of inbred mongoloids. As well as crippled, fat, out of work, redneck, conspiracy theorists who are "handicapped."

Most welfare is given to the elite.
How about you stop spiting the powerless like a fucking coward and stand against state and private power that is at the root of all these problems.

The people in power come from American families, American schools, and American communities. Society elects these political rejects. I'd blame the unenlightened public that elects them before I blame the lunatics that they let take control.

He's responsible for the pop scientists of today. Fuck him.
>b-but muh nostalgia
Neck yourselves, amerimutts

>Neck yourselves, amerimutts
I've tried several times

>He's responsible for the pop scientists of today.

Only in the sense that he tried to popularize philosophical skepticism. He warned us about people like Tyson and Nye who try to politicise science. Science has no political party.

>Would he be the first to call out today's "popular scientists" as charlatans if he were still alive?
Why would he? He said the exact same things.

Examples?

>"if god created the universe who created god?"
>"what actually happened was "
>"evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact"
>"let's assume half of planets are suitable for life and that a tenth of planets with life will host intelligent life eventually"
>"wow Kepler really butthurt the Church (please disregard the fact there was no controversy for 70 years and then only one guy got salty)"
>"if only we listened to turbo atheists during antiquity, we'd be on Saturn by now"
It's all popsci bullcrap made to sell VHS tapes and make proto-IFLS Scooby Doo fanboys feel like they're astro-projecting into the CMB.

Today's pop scientists like Brian Greene and Michio Kaku are much more knowledgeable than Sagan.

You listed a bunch of examples with no rebuttals. Seems like you're the butthurt one.

>Besides Occam's razor circlejerking, there are differences between a necessarily existing universe and a necessarily existing God who created the universe.
>Distances between cities in Egypt were recorded by authorities; no need to pay someone to measure them.
>Evolution is a theory.
>Life is factually ass-rare.
>There was no controversy for 70 years and then only one guy got salty.
>Give an uncivilized faggot a fedora; you'll get anything but advancement in math and physics.
Nice job ignoring the rebuttal in the 5th point BTW. Really says a lot about your ass-blasting levels, Reddit "dued im a skeptic let's believe in the many worlds interpretation because parallel universes and sheeit."

Calm down.
>please disregard the fact there was no controversy for 70 years and then only one guy got salty
Is not a rebuttal. You mentioned no names, no actual situation. Slow down and do your own research. I'm not asking that you cite sources because I have the time to fact check. I do ask that you flesh out your rebuttals to at least mention specifics.

>a jew calling out a nigger, ever.

>Carl Sagan practiced Judaism

It was Coppernicus, not Kepler btw. Anyway, 15 seconds on Wikipedia and a subtraction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Controversy
>It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani going unheeded.

Sagan was in fact not wrong about there being a controversy. It seems as though you're arguing semantics and presentation over facts. It's not misguided to question, but it's shortsighted in that it doesn't disprove Sagan's assertions.

>Sagan was in fact not wrong about there being a controversy.
He was in the fact he did everything to exaggerate its relevance, knowing the average Looney Tunes autist wouldn't check the sources. It's literally the same as saying there's no scientific consensus about climate change because some studies found a negative correlation.

The relevance of the Catholic church, particularly in that time, cannot be understated.

>"if only we listened to turbo atheists during antiquity, we'd be on Saturn by now"
>the greatest minds and works of the pre-Christian era
>turbo atheists
If you don't feel any kind of loss over the destruction of the Great Library then you literally have no soul.

>SETI is like playing the lottery.

If you are in favor of SETI, that was not a good argument to make.

Stronger rope.

Sagan introduced me to the world of astronomy. Love him.

you realize atheist jews still identify as jews, right?
still a better use of tax dollars than welfare or military spending

I was referring to his episode on proto-materialistic movements, not his first episode with the Eratosthenes segment. Examining scientific data and theories is interesting; imagining how closer to outer singularity we'd be if everyone thought like X isn't.

You needn't go far to say something to an alien. Ever seen Men In Black ?

Carl Sagan did not identify as a Jew. He identified as agnostic.

Yes, and I can't believe people like him, gloss over the fact, that natural selection alone cannot explain the whole of evolution.

>natural selection alone cannot explain the whole of evolution
>what are mutations?

Not only mutations but you have founder and catastrophe effects; Disaster strikes and some lucky minor offshoot of a larger population is left. Future descendants are heir to peculiar phenotype that wouldn't spread in the original distribution of population.

Not to mention God is a far worse answer than evolution. How do you pare the infinity of possible psychologies and possible believer-worshipper reward mechanisms...to a single definitive entity?

i remember really liking the way he strings words together, so satisfying to listen to.

SETI is a waste of money until you attract the attention of a galactic civilization that wants to turn you into pets or lunch or ashes

>REEEEE INTEREST IN SCIENCE IS BAD
>REE ONLY I SHOULD DECIDE WHO GETS TO ENJOY SCIENCE
>EVERYTHING IS POPSCI
I hope your existence is one of perpetual agony

Attached: 1482697771565.gif (262x300, 2.89M)

America isnt a direct democracy.
>Implying welfare is a waste of money because a non majority group benefits from it.
>Not realizing the overwhelming majority of state aid goes to the wealthy.

Stop posting on Veeky Forums and go read a book. Seriously, you dont even understand how your own government is structured, or the quantitative facts of its operations.

The hardline answer is simply "god is unknowable"