![rolling_eyes_neil_degrasse_tyson[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/mxZUtVA.gif "rolling_eyes_neil_degrasse_tyson[1].gif")
Does anyone else ever have very mixed feelings about pop sci?
I recently attended an art gallery opening where I spoke to one of the artist who was part of the two artist show. He talked to me for a bit, and I told him I was studying biochemistry. He bragged about being a nerd and having a 3.85 GPA. I told him that I had only a 3.1 GPA, but that science was harder than art. He then told me I was wrong and started sputtering off about how I was wrong and how it is harder to create art than it is to understand science. He then started misquoting and misinterpreting Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, and Nicholas Tesla.
On the one hand I really like pop sci. It keeps science fun and interesting. It makes science accessible to the public. I think part of the reason there is a slight up swing in money awarded to science is because of the influence that pop sci has of the public. On the other hand it gives the impression that science isn't as rigorous as it is. It gets misinterpreted a lot. I feel that a lot of people don't understand how complicated reality really is, and part of that is due to pop sci. I still like a lot of pop sci, especially that which is outside my field.
What is your opinion on science in the public sphere?
>>7739193
tyson is a meme
hurr god doesnt exist durr
figured all this out with untestable theories
>>7739193
I do have mixed feelings about it. It really depends on how the person presents the material. I find they way Feynman and Sagan did it to be beneficial, but people like Kaku mix in way too much pseudoscience. BSM tends to present accurate information but he seems very arrogant.
>>7739200
Tyson is agnostic.
>>7739227
>BSM?
Yeah it is annoying when people just get their facts from IFL or the Science Alert Page on facebook. I will admit, they sometimes do post interesting articles but for the most part it's just really dumbed down. Popscientists are just science fans, not actual scientists. They don't know the math needed for basic physics or chemistry, just random factoids.
I also cringe really hard whenever "Outrageous Acts of Science" is posted in suggested youtube videos or is shared on facebook. My fucking god, they probably pay these meme scientists a thousand dollars and a free trip to the studio so they can explain phenomena with extremely simple highschool science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaOBcF6N7e4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsgljjQE6J4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H774EC8fRdk
I also hate when meme scientists get involved with politics, like Neil Smoke Degrass Tyson and Bill Nye the Kekold Guy. People think their opinions trump all others--even when the topic is far outside of their fields of study.
>>7739244
Black Science Man
>>7739248
Oh...
>>7739246
I do feel that it is important to have scientist offer their expert opinions on some subjects in regards to policy creation, but I completely agree that t is odd that more weight is given to science communicators than the scientist who provided the data and initial interpretation.
Kind of unrelated video, but a good example of why people should respect experts when creating policy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZQWBrHnk0
Hi OP. I'm a Middle School Science teacher and yes I hate Pop Sci. It makes kids expect class to be like on TV......essentially a dog and pony show where I am the all knowing Science clown that is merely there to do cool Pop Science tricks.
Notes? BORING
Quiz? OMG UNFAIR
Study? LOL
I failed a test? YOU SUCK AT TEACHING
>but these good students got As
OMG THEY ALREADY KNEW THE INFORMATION
Pop Sci is ruining public education (along with a million other things) but it is making my job to directly teach the students difficult.
>>7739193
you don't hate popsci, you hate people who cling to arbitrary things and wield them, falsely, as if they give them some sort of invisible advantage over other beings because. You hate pretentiousness.
>>7739283
wow, sounds even worse than when I was in middle school, and high school, about 7 years ago.
got any greetext stories?
Mixed feelings implies ambivalence. I hate popsci.
>>7739193
I could not help but notice your gif was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your gif.
Your gif is now optimized.
>>7739193
You might be misinformed on how hard it is to be successful in art. It is like you are born for it or not. You have to be social enough to get your work out. You must dedicate your whole life to art skills and there is no limit to what you can do or how far you can improve at it. If you start too late you may not reach your potential. If you have the wrong mentor you may get de-railed from your potential. There is a reason artwork can get so expensive. It is cultural as well as skill based. If you were born in the wrong place where artwork is not valued, you may never succeed. College art is not like gym class. It is brutal and the teachers expect excellence. Lots of people may get art degrees, but they may not really be great.
With science you can memorize facts and processes. You can get As on projects and tests without having to be too creative. It is based on understanding and memory. Anyone can do this anywhere in the world when they become good at studying. I've seen people study art for years and they are still shit. If you study science for a long time, you should have some level of competence. Thats why art is harder. It takes a greater understanding of various subjects and total dedication.
I do think Neil Degrassi is essential for raising awareness about scientific thinking. A lot of people are doing a shitty job at it. Not everyone is going to get it.
>>7739311
if you're getting a degree in a scientific field where your "grades" or "intelligence" or any metric is quantified by how much stuff you've memorised, you're getting a meme degree.
>>7739283
>OMG THEY ALREADY KNEW THE INFORMATION
how the fuck do those little shitheads think they learned the information in the first place?
god damn i hate these types of people
>>7739327
pic related
>>7739311
>it is brutal and the teachers expect excellence
Who's got the screen cap of the guy who carved a dragon and the sculpture of the guy blowing himself.
Also if you don't there isn't a creative process in science you're beyond retarded.
>On the other hand it gives the impression that science isn't as rigorous as it is
That's just fine if someone else wants to think that. I'm a graduating senior in biochemistry and I strongly dislike telling people my major. why?
>i major in biochemistry
>WOH SOMEONE MUST BE A GENIUS!
Also when you try to tell someone about what you do or what you study that you find exciting (you know, the not pop-sci facets of your major?) they fall asleep. No one gives a fuck about biochemistry except other chemists and scientists. But Everyone cares about the cure for cancer or X life threatening disease.
This all comes together to make me of the opinion that I dont care if some retard art major doesnt think what I do is hard. He clearly doesnt understand it and he more than likely will never develop an appreciation. In that sense, its like a mcdonalds burger flipper telling an engineer that he could design a rocket more thoroughly. Just go back to enjoying your shit while you laugh behind his back at his ignorance.
>>7739283
What's the curriculum like? I remember middle school science as a waste of time because we went over the same subjects in much more detail in high school. I commend you for actually being interested in science and trying to spread that to the students, though. God knows it's nearly impossible to teach them anything at that age.
>>7739311
>You might be misinformed on how hard it is to be successful in art. It is like you are born for it or not. You have to be social enough to get your work out. You must dedicate your whole life to art skills and there is no limit to what you can do or how far you can improve at it. If you start too late you may not reach your potential. If you have the wrong mentor you may get de-railed from your potential. There is a reason artwork can get so expensive. It is cultural as well as skill based. If you were born in the wrong place where artwork is not valued, you may never succeed. College art is not like gym class. It is brutal and the teachers expect excellence. Lots of people may get art degrees, but they may not really be great.
Yeah all this is true of science too, only you can also be objectively wrong. Science can be just as subjective as art with the double edge of being objective as well. The more you learn, the more you question and realize how little the total of human knowledge is. It can be overwhelming and a little bit scary. All science is viewed through the subjective lens of the human mind trying to objectively observe and understand reality.
>>7739283
I know that feeling. I was a substitute teacher for a little bit. I hated middle school kids the most.I can only imagine how hard it is to deal with them on a daily basis.
>>7739193
someone please tell me what Tyson was rolling his eyes at.
>>7739365
Your penis.
>>7739375
>>7739283
>implying the bad students even consume popsci media
>>7739283
doesn't Pop Sci work as an introduction for a specific topic? I could imagine, that once the pupils get an idea what they could do with the topic, they might be more interested and motivated. At the end, it is all about motivation, isn't it? I'm obviously not a teacher so maybe you can elaborate a bit more on that.
>>7739835
He teaches to get them to pass his tests rather than get them excited about understanding the world around them. He feels inadequate to be held to the standard of the 'Black Science Man' his kids expect him to be similar to.
pop sci fucking sucks
![8Rj6Ma9[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/uCNFFSN.gif "8Rj6Ma9[1].gif")
>>7739193
He is kind of right, I am great at science, can't paint to save my life. I am a huge jazz fan, everyone asks me why I never learn an instrument and play myself the reason is that I know I will never have the artistic flair of legends such as John Coltrane or Charles Mingus and if I tried I would just tend up insulting the genre with shitty Kenny G style lounge jazz. Understanding science is easy, book says this happens because of that you remember it end of story. The fact that the Asian community shits out scientists and doctors so frequently exemplifies this. If it requires talent then why is it that virtually every Asian kid somehow becomes a doctor or engineer? They just forced themselves to learn to please their parents. You can never force yourself to paint like Picasso.
>>7740082
You arent great at science. You are as delusional as the kid who thinks he is a great artist.
And none of the asians come even near to a genius.
>>7740059
Call me edgy but I actually prefer the sculpture of the dude sucking himself off over the dragon tail. The sucker sculpture has nice aesthetic form and perspective, the minimalism works well with the subject matter; I get from it a human in it's raw no-frills basic form is a primal being. Compare it to the dragon tail which is kitsch, tryhard ("It's good because the scales are intricate!") and doesn't even signify anything, it's just a dragon tail just like any you would pick up form a Chinatown bargain bucket.
>>7740098
>Projection
>>7740103
>arguments
>>7740106
Well it is projection. You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I do yet you stated that I am mediocre based on what exactly? Your own mediocrity?
>>7740082
No, he isn't, it's a territorial pissing match that means nothing.
How do you get good at art? Do it, everyday. Want to learn to draw? Start drawing, and continue drawing. Get some people to show you drawing techniques. Sculpture, music, same deal. Start doing it, and do it everyday.
Want to get good at science? Do math. Everyday. Get someone to teach you math, and experimental science.
The process is essentially the same. Which is easier, math, art, sports, depends on who you are, genetically and environmentally. Which takes longer? Probably science, because you need to learn more math to REALLY get all of it. You can be a good artist in high school, and not know shit about quantum mechanics until college. The process though, is roughly the same thing everyone does to get good at something.
Will the process make you a great ___? Again depends on genetics, everyone can probably be an average artist and mathematian. Only a select few, through some genetic and environmental combination, can truly be great at either.
Which is more beneficial to society? He asks on his computer.
>>7740117
>How do you get good at art? Do it, everyday. Want to learn to draw? Start drawing, and continue drawing. Get some people to show you drawing techniques. Sculpture, music, same deal. Start doing it, and do it everyday.
That's how you get good at realism. Despite what /sci/ thinks realism isn't the be all end all of art.
>Want to get good at science? Do math.
This exemplifies that science is so easy that you don't even need to study it deeply in order to get good at it. Know how to solve equations, see an equation governing a scientific process, solve it, wahey you're good at science.
>Which is easier, math, art, sports, depends on who you are, genetically and environmentally
The only sensible thing you have said
>Which is more beneficial to society?
That is irrelevant to this discussion bu I'll bite anyway. You probably wouldn't have a computer if it wasn't for art. The home computing market exists largely for media consumption, the small business and technical markets aren't big enough to make personal computers viable financially. If it wasn't for people wanting to download movies and music or edit photos then cheap personal computers wouldn't be a thing.
>>7740127
I mean cheap ones wouldn't be viable financially, you would be looking at $2,000 minimum.
>>7740127
If it makes you feel better, you can believe that. Santa makes children feel good too.
>>7740136
>straight outta arguments
>>7740127
Art is just marketing, it's a way to sell an idea. It's hype and packaging. Why is a shark preserved by Damien Hurst worth a million dollars? Because he gave it pretentious name and said that it was worth a million dollars, and people believed him. Why is the LHC worth billions of dollars? Because of the amount of expertise, engineering, and countless man hours of complex thinking that went into it. Art is about swindling, science is about understanding a phenomenon.
>>7739193
>>7739283
>>7739299
Butt-hurt scientist being made redundant by true geniuses, unveiling fake scientism like evil-ution and global warming. Keeping masses ignorant so they can suck each off in labs all day. Picture related it's a real scientist
>>7740160
Many of the greatest artists never made a penny in their lifetimes. Jazz and classical musicians also never make any money. Miles Davis wasn't a millionaire and nobody has since become a millionaire selling his albums.
>>7739193
Reality isn't complicated. Pop sci tries to make it complicated with artificial theories like black holes so they can make money.
>>7739193
It seems your problem is really with the public and their attitude to science.
What does /sci/ think about veritasium?
>>7740181
/o/ here.
I've seen a few of his videos but got triggered by the existentialism in his chernobyl video. I liked them, but I get why some wouldn't like the way he simplifies many things. The history of kilogram was probably my favourite.
I prefer Vsauce if I'm honest
>>7739193
>>7740161
at least pop-sci leads to scientific interest, then reality filters out the "14 failing science but is really smart because he knows some half assed quotes about the amount of stars compared o grains of sand, or some shit. BUT the real harm is what the simplification caused by pop-sci leads to charlatan like Deepak Chopra or the facebook/youtube page spirit science, the page has almost 10 million followers for fucks sake, personal friends of mine, occasionally bring this shit up on my feed, otherwise rational adults fooled by some sciencey sounding terms diluted with bullshit, it's absolutely fucked. picture related took it 10 minutes ago, barely had to scroll down on the page to find the most outrageous shit, it's absolutely infuriating.
>>7740164
Maybe Miles Davis isn't good?
>>7739193
"pop science" is basically just making people feel smart about stuff to sell commercials. And if they were fed bad stuff, making you waste that much more time trying to correct them. They heard it from a meme glorified on TV and you just have the degree and actually put it in practice. It is annoying mainly because the audience can't think for themselves and the host tends to not be interested in helping them to do so. But rather for the audience to glorify them as the expert.
It was popsci reporting on graphene that got me interested enough to learn what makes graphene so strong. 99% of humans aren't capable of caring about science - they're only concerned with avoiding embarressment and trolling each other. But without popsci, the 1% won't be exposed to science, and you lose that portion of the lay population (Such as myself) which understands and supports science. Moreover, scientists tend to come from that 1% - I install computers, AP's, routers, switches and run CAT5e cable for a living, but I'm only 27 and it's not too late for me to get a STEM degree. I have ample free time, which I use to tech myself - I'm even doing online bioprinting courses.
Popsci does more good than harm.
>>7739835
Yeah but the fact is, any subject has roadblocks and hard parts. Modern students just want to be able to be "experts" and listen to the sound of their own voice but without hard work.
>>7740265
this is somewhat anecdotal but the majority of mainstream reportings either make outrageous claims or make scientists look like baffoons that tripped over a world-changing claim one day, and sometimes both , for example the faster than light experiment, early results were published, the authors explaining that this was almost certainly a mistake, next day journalists reported "scientists break the speed of light", graphene's another example i've seen some lesser online journalism blogs make the discovery of graphene sound like some guy was fucking around with tape in his office.
also this
>>7740209
No one really complains when people say they like football when what they mean is they like watching football games, same with movies, music and so on. It's only with science that people get angry at fans of the outcome.
>>7740319
the thing is though after a mate explaining the game to you, with in 5 minutes you can have a decent understanding of the game, to appreciate it, however this is not the case for science even low level stuff requires fundamentals before being explained and this is possible and has been done quite well at a low level by several youtube channels etc, however this is generally not the case, from my experience very few people want to increase their basic grasp of fundamental concepts; eg dropping a ball of a cliff and the involved calculations in ideal conditions (zero air resis etc) but rather instead want to dive into quantum weirdness, black wholes, dark energy and dark matter, the latter of which the most educated scientists today are unable to validate exsist let alone understand.
>>7739200
>hurr god doesnt exist durr
you're a meme
>>7740416
He is referencing the difference between watching football and practicing football. Listening to your friend explain football in five minutes is not the same thing as all the practice and discipline necessary to excel at playing the sport, no more than listening to NDT explain string theory for five minutes means you can now be considered an expert on it.
i'll take half assed knowledge over none at all.
as with all things, there's some good and some bad
>>7740429
What absolute prattle. Such an inexcusably meaningless contribution to the discussion.
>>7739193
>I told him that I had only a 3.1 GPA, but that science was harder than art.
lol wat
Pop science is a cancer for many reasons
One is that it encourages a very shallow and simplified version of what science is. This provides people with a misinformed and unrealistic understanding of what science is.
Another is that it leads to the kinds of people that OP talked about. Liberal Art students and similar sorts who watch the occasional BBC documentary and have liked I Fucking Love Science on Facebook delude themselves into thinking they are highly knowledgeable about science.
A further issue is that the i dividuals involved in Pop Science are often extremely obnoxious atheists and their opinions get disseminated into the Pop Science "community" so you get retards saying that science disproves religion when religion and science are completely different entities that are not mutually exclusive.
Long story short, Pop Science is shit and its only value is that it might make funding of actual scientific research easier to obtain. Particularly important for organisations like NASA or CERN.
>>7740548
well, you can't expect every human being to fully absorb every scientific discipline, people got shit to do. This is a consequence of specialization within society.
that said, it sure would be nice if people looked at pop sci stories for what they are, entry level into the material
Just because people don't study the math or understand the more complicated aspects of the subject doesn't mean they can't get an adequate layman's explanation of the subject to understand why it's important to our general understandings and/or its practical implications.
>>7740568
If you have more than a 3.4 you aren't doing grad school right.
>>7740580
This whole post is one big cancerous meme and you don't have any good reasons for disliking popular science.
>>7740616
That's like saying you can appreciate shakespeare if it were acted purely in wordless gestures; you'd get a sliver of what's interesting about it without learning it in the language it's spoken, and would probably end up assuming it was something it weren't because its complexity suffered such a lossy compression.
Of course, you could also argue that popsci is just one harmless diversion among many. If that's the argument, then meh.
To sound like a faggot, the problem with pop-sci is that it's all factoids and no knowledge.
In the words of my Lord, Dr. Ian Malcolm:
>I'll tell you the problem with the scientific POP-SCI that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and...you didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you MEMED it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it.
That's the major problem with pop-sci, and with fucking artists thinking they understand science. A great is example are animal rights activists. Any competent scientist looks at the fossil record and sees death and fucking misery. They understand evolutionary history to appreciate how we, Homo sapiens, managed to struggle their way to occupy the highest trophic level. It was a fucking struggle filled with misery and death...and then they get sad when fucking Cecil the Lion is killed. FUCK CECIL the Lion. Imagine what our Australopithecine ancestors would have thought of our 21st century softness. It is an embarrassment of the highest order.
If pop-sci doesn't tread carefully, it's going to go the way of 3rd wave feminism and other sorts of progressive-regressive thinking. Nature is an amoral, psychopathic mistress, and due to the law of It Takes One To Know One, a true scientist must also embrace the psychopathy in order to truly understand the universe. If that means experimenting on bacteria, or plants, or invertebrates, or vertebrates, then that's what it fucking takes.
>>7740127
>That's how you get good at realism. Despite what /sci/ thinks realism isn't the be all end all of art.
There is no such thing as realist music, but you can recognize that musicians without practice sound awful.
>>7740708
>A great is example are animal rights activists.
This attitude is built on the very soft, disconnected, and falsely enlightened viewpoint that permeates various cultures. You want to act like you could fill the shoes of your ancestors, but you can't. You're weak. You're slow. You're stupid, and you're soft. You've likely never hunted for food or been threatened in your life, nor have you had to survive. You go fight for your food in the grocery store you little runt, and don't you try to reason that shame away. You are not your ancestors, and you don't understand their context whatsoever.
Get over it. You live in a manicured ecology engineered or you and your survival. We tried to exempt ourselves from the laws of the natural world that made us, so now what? Mindlessly kill everything simply because we can, right up until your dumb ass is getting eaten by bacteria? No. We know better, we know things can be better. We, unlike our ancestors, have a choice. Not using that to be more responsible and lessen the very misery you claim to know, is the only embarrassment. We're broken, we're delusional, and we're half baked. That is something really worthy of disgust.
>>7739193
I actually think introductory (grade-school) tier science aimed at kids who are moderately curious about it is better than popsci clickbait aimed at teens-adults who long ago decided they don't really give a shit about science.
>>7740724
Fuck off, Ricky.
>>7740732
Don't know who that is. But now I want to know.
>>7740733
Ricky Gervais.
Another artist who happens to think that because he's an atheist he's scientifically literate.
>>7740724
Who's talking about exempting ourselves from the natural world? Who's talking about mindlessly killing EVERYTHING? This is the moronic hyperbolic shit moron progressives drone on about. Insult Islam, "OMG NOT ALL MUSLIMS". Fuck Cecil the Lion, "OMG U WANNA KILL ALL ANIMALS". At that whole self-deprecation of one's own species: "[Humans are] something really worth of disgust." Only idiot animal rights activists hate their own species.
Anyone who hates humans should be put down. Euthanized. It hurts me that Hilter tried to exterminate the Jews, since they were such great contributors to science. He should have killed the animal lovers...but Hitler was an animal lover himself. Unlucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jISagq2Uko
>>7740718
There is kind of a musical analogue, it's called technicality. Just like how most plebs think that photographic drawing skill maketh an artist, most plebs also think that being able to copy Mozart note for note maketh a good musician. For example in jazz Bill Evans and Thelonious Monk are both extremely highly regarded yet while Evans plays like a classical virtuoso Monk plays basic jams that sound borderline out-of-tune. In spite of this Monk is arguably the more highly regarded one, why is this? Because he just has more "jazz spirit" in him. Likewise Picasso painted semi-random blocks yet it is clear that he has far more "artistic flair" than even the best photorealistic painter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ0WslUsk1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrWQndgX1QU
This "realism of music" i.e the technicality is what I hate about classicalfags, they are always saying "hurr, classical is better purely because it requires more technical skill". Art isn't about complexity it's about how it makes you feel.
>>7740749
>Anyone who hates humans should be put down.
There's nothing particularly special about the human form. It was just an accident of chance anyway.
>>7740763
I'm watching Midnight Hot on Fashion TV right now and go fuck yourself. The female human form is the most beautiful thing in the universe. As beautiful as this cosmos is, nothing compares to these hairless, pink primate females.
It's fucking sick.
never seen /sci/ this mad before
pretty cool desu
>>7740683
>hi, reddit here
>>7740749
>Who's talking about exempting ourselves from the natural world?
Look around you. Look what we do. Look where we plan to go. Look what part of us always wins. It speaks for itself, the human species is bigger than a single individual.
>Who's talking about mindlessly killing EVERYTHING?
As above. If it can be killed, we will kill it. We don't always do it on purpose, but it's in our nature What's in the way is in the way, after all.
>This is the moronic hyperbolic shit moron progressives(...}
Blah blah blah, etc. Could it be you don't actually understand the meaning of your own words?
>Only idiot animal rights activists hate their own species.
Misanthropes have always existed. And everyone hates themselves to some degree. Mostly. Now who's making broad generalizations and taking things to their logical extremes.
Being the same species spurs no sense of kinship. Again, you don't understood our history or our species. You don't even know yourself. Start there.
>Anyone who hates humans should be put down.
Why? Cause' it russels your jimmies?
This is still the natural world, anon. Our departure is an illusion. You feed or you are fed upon. There is nothing else. There will almost certainly never be anything else. You can make those big claims, but they need to be backed. In the natural world, in person, someone might just pound your head in at the mere suggestion. I bet you're a scrawny one anyway, so you probably couldn't do much about it.
>>7740769
Relative to the system observing it.
>>7740752
You think if Monk didn't practice he'd have been able to play basic jams that sounded borderline out-of-tune but still excellent?
>>7740782
>Being the same species spurs no sense of kinship.
So...you're admitting that xenophobia is acceptable?
I don't get your points. You're conceding human "weaknesses", you say then that I don't understand the history of our species, but at the same time seem to be saying that humans have a choice so, by extension, history need not repeat itself...but then you say if it can be killed, we will kill it, it's in our nature.
You seem to be doing this schizophrenic free-will/determinism dance and it's fucking annoying as fuck.
>>7740806
>So...you're admitting that xenophobia is acceptable?
I'm saying it's clearly mediated by different factors, regardless of the individual.
>but then you say if it can be killed, we will kill it, it's in our nature.
As one grand machine, yes, that is our nature. It doesn't matter what individual parts desire. They still need things, they still do things, and that still generates affordances and transfers resources around the system as a whole.
We have advanced food production of many kinds, and the awareness to predict and prevent substantial ecological disruption. Add this to theory of mind, and general availability of information, we should be capable of realizing why other creatures should be treated properly and reliably doing so. The biggest issue behind all of our modern problems is unfortunately overpopulation. A need for resources, and a need for space. But we're more talking philosophically, about people's faculty for thought, intellectual honesty, and awareness.
If I used your line of thinking, there would be a lot of people ultimately put to death. I'd let them choose how though, within reason. That would take care of both facets of the issue, at least temporarily. And more.
>free-will/determinism
Has nothing to do with it, and doesn't even make sense.
>>7740822
>free-will/determinism
>Has nothing to do with it, and doesn't even make sense.
To quote you:
>>7740724
We, unlike our ancestors, have a choice.
This basically confirms you as an alpha pop-sci faggot. You actually had me going for a bit that you were capable of internally consistent arguments.
Kudos.
>>7740828
"I started the debate and now I'm sure I can't win, I should probably just exit the same way I came in."
Well, go off on your way then. I'll admit though, you get points for creativity. Neat cop out.
I'll remember you. In a good way.
>>7740837
You and I both know that there is no "debate" here, and you write in such an unscientific manner, without critical thinking. You think, certainly, but not critically. Humans don't try to exempt themselves from their world. They try to master and dominate their world. There is such a difference. Sailors don't try to exempt themselves from from the sea--they try to master the sea. Scientists don't try to exempt themselves from nature--they try to understand and master nature. There is no exemption except in the minds of unlearned, uncurious persons, persons not involved in trying to understand the natural world. E.g., artists typically think stupid shit like this.
You just look at shit like the limit of silicon transistors to demonstrate that "exempting" oneself from nature is laughably impossible. Again, only unscientifically literate persons, like artists, would think that humans are trying to "exempt" themselves from nature--because they don't know any better.
I know many persons like you. There is no debate here.
>>7740871
>and you write in such an unscientific manner
I regret writing this, since my own statement is equally unscientific. I mean you write as if you don't bother considering null hypotheses for your arguments.
>>7740871
>You and I both know that there is no "debate" here
I couldn't help but throw song lyrics in there. It's just so banal, man I've done this before.
>There is such a difference.
You're looking at the same thing from a different angle, it's identical. Man seeks to exempt itself from the ways present for the majority of species comparable to it. You can say this occurs via control, or is dependent on degree of control, but it's really the same thing, and it leads to exemption. Even I living in a rural area, am relatively exempt, beyond eating poultry. The nearest apex predator is the black bear, and we're scarcely alike.
The sailor seeks to be exempt from the influence of the sea. Look at this freighters. Look at these yachts. These cruiseliners. They have pools, they have diners, they have everything you'd have or want landside. It's exemption.
>Scientists don't try to exempt themselves from nature
We are all slaves to nature, and this cannot be transcended. We know this, but attempt to lessen its grasp through narrowing its spectrum of control. It's dualistic, and as you've mentioned, this is proportionate to increasing our own spectrum of control. Or available affordances.
>You just look at shit like the limit of silicon transistors to demonstrate that "exempting" oneself from nature is laughably impossible.
Nature is unfortunately one of those words. You need to trade technical accuracy for a reduction in verbosity.
I'm not going to take this wilful lack of comprehension seriously.
You're a fool. The world is a machine, and we're but a single part. When you separate a part, you can compare it and evaluate its relationship to the rest.
By the way. I'm in a lot of pain right now. I suggest you shape up, or I'm going to just drop this conversation.
>>7740893
>I couldn't help but throw song lyrics in there. It's just so banal, man I've done this before.
Didn't even fucking notice they were song lyrics. Good for you. Just because you've done something before doesn't mean you're good at it.
>You're looking at the same thing from a different angle, it's identical.
You should learn about refraction and critical angels. Different angles matter. Again, if you were a scientist, or if your pop-sci mojo were stronger, you'd "get" it.
>The world is a machine
Machine is unfortunately one of those words. You need to trade technical accuracy for a reduction in verbosity.
>By the way. I'm in a lot of pain right now. I suggest you shape up, or I'm going to just drop this conversation.
If you were a girl, then I would have the ever-so-slightest sympathy for you. But you're not, so my chivalrous nature shan't extend to you. "I suggest you shape up"...who the fuck says this? The most effeminate shit ever.
>>7739229
agnostics are a meme
>>7739193
ITT: Things that never happened
>>7740918
You've said almost nothing with any substance. I'm more or less mentally crippled at the moment, you should be able to walk all over me if you actually knew anything.
I'm done. Going to go search for something to dull the pain, and hopefully bring my mind back to some semblance of usability. Nothing personal.
Enjoy the rest of your evening, or whatever it might be.
>>7740932
Enjoy your migraine, faggot.
>>7739246
>volcano cooks ravioli with meme dubstep
Who would've thunk it? Heat cooks thing. MY MIND IS BLOWN!
>>7739309
wow OP way to not thank this guy
look, he optimized your gif for you and you don't even acknowledge him.
I'm disappointed in you.
>>7739193
>He talked to me for a bit, and I told him I was studying biochemistry. He bragged about being a nerd and having a 3.85 GPA. I told him that I had only a 3.1 GPA, but that science was harder than art. He then told me I was wrong and started sputtering off about how I was wrong and how it is harder to create art than it is to understand science.
literal autism
Hey hey guys, so I'm in journalism school looking to specialize in science journalism and I would like some input on what YOU look for in your science news/journalistic/feature pieces.
My undergrad degree was in biology, where I focused on genetics, animal phys, evolution, and environmental studies. My love of sharing information is what brought me to journalism, where my love of science has me wanting to enter science journalism.
Since I've been a part of the scientific community for some time, I have my own idea of how I think science journalism should be (since I don't really enjoy the way IFL science does things, among other popsci sources). But other people's input is important to me, especially considering I hope to one day write things you will read.
>So, what do you look for (or want to see more of) in science journalism/news/feature pieces?
This can be in the form of topics, the way in which things are covered, the way in which they are written or spun, the people/experts/"experts" interviewed, the format in which the story is presented, whatever...
>How can science journalism improve for you
>>7741456
Make it journalism and not opinion pieces.
But that's an impossible thing to ask, so you're just going to contribute to the cancer.
I actually got banned from commenting on IFL Science. They had a post about internal decapitations.
And I said it wasn't a real decapitation because not everything was severed. No arteries were severed, esophagus wasn't separated, trachea wasn't separated, even nerve cord wasn't severed. Only the vertebra became detached from the skull, which is more of a dislocation than a decapitation. If you dislocate your arm, you don't say your arm was internally severed, doesn't make sense.
Anyway, because I was making these comments about a baby which suffered a traumatic injury in a car accident, the moderator had his feelings hurt and decided to ban me.
You are setting yourself up to be part of the problem. This gives my testicles cancer.
>>7739193
I'm not a fan of pop science. At least not Tyson and Bill Nye and all those cucks.
On the other hand I love Veritasium, Numberphile and some Vsauce videos, so fuck me right?
>>7741626
Bready haram is GOAT
>>7741667
More like brady halal lmao
>>7739193
Anyone feel like NASA just likes to pull the wool over our eyes to please us? They throw some computer generated images of stars and planets now and again to keep us quiet. I'll always be interested though.
>>7741677
I thought that stuff is mainly so that normies don't actively try to shut NASA down for not doing anything practical so they can stay snuggled and cozy in the US budget deficit
>>7741021
How is what he said /pol/?
>>7739193
What I don't get is why you felt the need to point out that what you do is harder that what he does. Do you have such low self-esteem that you were actually threatened by something he said? Who actually cares what's the HARDEST thing to do - is this all some kind of pissing contest for you? "What I do is more difficult, therefore I am more intelligent to you" Why don't you grow up and just chill and have a good time with people instead of having the need to prove your "brilliance" at every turn. To me, it sounds like you both suck dick.
>>7740769
Actually if you manage to gain a level of control over yourself you can see humans as they 'really' are (or rather, more similar to how we view everything else) and we look fucking weird man.
If the brain wasn't wired to make us attracted to one another you would be creeped out just looking at a human.
>>7741703
Any organism is "fucking weird". Your point is moot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu2OYcgr4rM
>>7740749
>Another artist who happens to think that because he's an atheist he's scientifically literate.
This really annoys me, too. I remember him saying to Karl to trust him on this fact that he didn't believe because he was a scientist. It must be a pretty low bar if someone who can drop out of a Biology degree course, and go on to study philosophy, qualifies as a scientist.
>>7741707
Naw, our weirdness is distinctive.
>>7740752
>Evans plays like a classical virtuoso
lol, no he doesn't. Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson do though.
>>7740763
Well, I would not really sy it is not special: it see ms thare is a good reason that eyes are facing generally the way that is easiset for humans to walk, run, and grab (looking at their lifestyle), even if hypothetically another form would do just as well in the humans' niche.
>>7740686
I disagree, you can appreciate Shakespeare by watching a play and then reading an explanation about it, if you didn't understand the language, without studying him so much that you can watch his plays and understand his language perfectly.
Sure, you can't FULLY appreciate it without studying it in-depth, but it's unrealistic to expect people to dedicate their lives to delving that deeply into every topic.
>>7740209
i hate that spirit science faggot so god damned much, he's ruined the critical thinking faculties of countless people with his deranged new age tripe.
I mean just listen to this shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-4zdmd0TNU
>>7741713
I argue that Evans is also virtuoso-tier alongside those two.
>>7740798
Well yeah he practiced but my point is that it's not just practice, you can play the piano as well as Monk did and still not sound as good.
>>7741743
Lost when they reached hearts.
>>7739193
It's bullshit.
Most of the people that "love science" hasn't even written a bachelors degree or even read and analyzed a scientific paper.
Bunch of posers.
>>7741743
Spirit science stole Plato's realm of forms and chopped it up into meaningless shit then packed it into new age "energy lmao" shit and stirred that into a bunch of pop science and now everyone thinks its deep
>>7739193
>It keeps science fun and interesting
No, they would be better off with sci-fi
>It makes science accessible to the public
Spewing buzzwords isn't making science accessible to the public
>slight up swing in money awarded to science
No
>>7739193
Pop sci is to science as 2 min PG-13 sex scenes are to action flicks.
>>7739246
>I also cringe really hard whenever "Outrageous Acts of Science" is posted in suggested youtube videos or is shared on facebook.
This is the first time I've heard of that channel.
Fuck you for bringing my attention to it.
>>7741828
This.
It handicaps the public. It skews their perception of what real science is. It actually alienates them to such a degree that it prevents them from learning about or practicing real science. When real science is presented to them, they have no real educational foundation to properly understand it, let alone be interested in it.
I know Maddox is an old meme, but
>>7741965
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd
>>7741966
I don't get why anyone would want to identify as a nerd. Is it because of the big bang theory? I mean even Sheldon Cooper is really fucking hot by nerd standards.
Big bang theory is shit anyway. The IT crowd is where it's at
>>7741699
OP here
I wasn't threaten by what he said, he was bragging about how smart he was and how difficult art is. He seemed to think that all I was doing was easy kiddy stuff, like he did in high school. He had no idea what he was talking about but was trying to sound like an expert. If anything I was protecting the dignity of my studies. Anyone can fake it till they make it in art, but science requires real knowledge and expertise. Even if some one accidentally discovers something they have to be able to replicate it and prove that it was significant when analyzing data. Yeah, I do get jaded when someone says that science is easy or what they do is harder. I've poured a lot of time and effort into my education and it is insulting when someone thinks what I do is easy and what they do is harder, especially when they're a painter.
>hurr science is just memorizing facts and studying durr
This is how you know someone is an idiot. Doing research, especially when your grants aren't very large, forces you to be creative to get shit done. And if you do research concerning cancer, alzheimers, or any other well known disease/disorder, you would know that you can't just go in a lab and use what a textbook told you to do in order to find a treatment. To be a good scientist is to use your resources and turn your failed experiments into a valuable project that others can use and learn from.
>>7741667
Brady is my waifu
I come here because I enjoy space and the threads related to it, but my main interest is in historical stuff. Pop-history is down the scale, but it's still bad. Pop anything is bad from what I've reckoned.
Shit like Vikings is popular and ahistorical garbage, yet people take it as fact. Almost as bad as Ancient Aliens.
>>7741699
I mean, you just described the entirety of the relationship between /sci/ and /lit/...
>>7742881
I'm curious, what's so bad about vikings? I always enjoy hearing knowledgeable people tear into pop garbage
>>7742901
My knowledge of Viking-age things isn't 100%, but I do know a bit. For one, they completely get the timeline of things wrong. Stuff like the raid on Lindisfarne and the the siege of Paris happened about 100 years apart, I believe. In fact, I'd have to consult some books because my mind's a bit foggy but I believe Bjorn Ironside did the Paris bit. Names are a bit wrong for actual historical characters like Rollo.
One of the bigger things I dislike is that almost everyone in the village (of KATTEGAT WHICH IS A BODY OF FUCKING WATER) goes on the raids. If Ragnar had a wife, a farm, children, and good tidings from all that, he would not have gone on a raid. Hardly anyone back then was a "Viking," and certainly not someone who actually had it good back home.
I get it's a show and all, but it's on the History Channel and I expect a little accuracy. It'd be like if Cosmos were on the Science Channel and started talking about aliens and how they met us and gave us inventions, you know?
>>7742881
>/his/
>>7740921
monotheists are a meme
>>7741688
>NASA
>pointless, does nothing practical
Now theres a meme
>>7741698
das racist
>>7743134
I'm saying it from the average normie's perspective. I sure prefer NASA to military
>>7739193
>Does anyone else ever have very mixed feelings about pop sci?
No anon, nobody here has the general hivemind opinion of /sci/...
>>7740101
desu unless the dragon is like 50 meters long the tail looks kind of wonky and poorly proportioned. I'm sure dragon guy put more effort into his sculpture, but effort =/= quality. He seems to assume that just because he worked his ass off making the dragon and filled it with complex bullshit, it's automatically superior to more minimalist stuff. Art doesn't work like that.
>>7740160
Science is literally art, and vice versa. Both are expressions of human emotions and drives, and both are used to create the other. There isn't a sharp dividing line.
>>7744003
>2/10 almost raged
>>7740708
Another great example of why it'a a good thing politicians, philosophers and businessmen run the world, and not scientists.
>>7744006
What is wrong about this
>>7740724
There are so many flaws in your post, that I don't even know if you're just baiting me.
Suffice it to point out to you, that the major contributing factor to human dominance over the planet Earth, is our capability to learn and pass on said learning to our offspring.
You say we are weak, because we don't hunt for our food? It's because we don't fucking have to.
Instead we possess the ability to build houses out of steel and stone, guns to protect and to inflict damage and we have language, law and organization.
Any Australopitiful would get fucking rekt by modern man.
I think pop sci does more help than harm. Sure it makes people misunderstand science and act annoying on facebook, but it keeps them generally aware and makes kids interested in it as a career.
>>7739227
Kaku is what got me interested physics tbqh :P
Feynman is the one who made me want to major in it though.
>>7740209
This bothers me as well. But it makes for a good laugh if you try not to think about the fact that people believe this shit.
>>7744030
Art is human expression, science is humans trying to understand nature. I'm sure there's a more nuanced explanation of the two, but I think that roughly summarizes it.
>>7744037
That's exactly the point he's making. We no longer have to live like non-human animals, so attempting to delegitimize modern attitudes towards animals, nature etc by pointing out that things were different in the past is not an effective argument.
>>7744039
Humans trying to understand nature is an expression of the human desire for knowledge about the world around then.
What is the "point" of science? To satisfy human drives and improve the human experience - the same as art. Science is also a fundamentally creative process. The only real difference is that science has a more rigorously defined methodology, but so do certain artistic movements.
>He bragged about being a nerd and having a 3.85 GPA.
Should have fucking ended the conversation right there and completely ignored him after that, you moron.
>>7744041
The point he's making is that "we can do better".
The point is that this line of thinking would never have allowed us to have gotten started in the first place, and as such there's no evidence that it's a better course of action than any other course of action.
Most animal-rights activists wouldn't have survived long enough to produce little animal-rights activist offspring. It is a hypocritical position to have.
I personally encourage animal-rights activists to get HIV/AIDS, since their immune system is slaughtering innocent microbes by the tens of thousands per day as we speak. Per day, every day, until the end of their lives. The genocide is unparalleled, and only the pus remains.
![W1siZiIsIjI0MTQ2NiJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDMwMHgzMDBcdTAwM0UiXV0[1].jpg_sha=2560b248ff3b21fc.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ETWyNfF.jpg "W1siZiIsIjI0MTQ2NiJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDMwMHgzMDBcdTAwM0UiXV0[1].jpg_sha=2560b248ff3b21fc.jpg")
Tom Friedman's 1000 Hours of Staring is a blank canavas that was started at for 1,000 hours by the artist. How do you know he spent 1000 hours in front of a blank canvas? You don't. I've heard that it is valued at $500,000 US. It resides in the MoMA [http://www.moma.org/collection/works/114939?locale=en]. He thought of a very cheeky way to get a lot of money for a blank canvas. He's a con man. No one in any other line of work could get away with this with out being arrested for fraud. Art isn't using lies to tell the truth, it's using lies to make money. Modern art has become a parasitic practice to siphon money, it's a Poniy scheme. Wealthy people pay a lot of money for something valueless, and then claim it is worth more than what they paid; then some sucker buys it for more and the value of the art goes up, this continues until some sucker realizes it is worthless or the art work is destroyed and an insurance company has to pay out.
>>7744107
That doesn't really say much about "art", which is an unfathomably vast catalogue of human experience and expression that includes the entirety of science.
It does say a lot about Tom Friedman and the several hundred people who would pay money for a blank canvas by him.
>>7741677
>implying stars exist
>>7744112
So what you are saying is that art is easy because humans have a limited ability to experience.
>>7744131
I'm saying that "art" is a category that contains all human expression ever, and dismissing it based on a single subjective example is dumb as shit.
>>7739193
Pop science's purpose is to make science seem more accessable and close to the society than it actually is. It underlines sciences importance for people who don't care or understand it's role in daily life. This is one of those things that by proxy put the food on your table and the equipment in your lab.
Now, about this discussion of yours:
While studying actual sciences makes a good scientist, it doesn't make a good inventor. Science makes constant but really slow advancements in technology. It's rarely leaps of development, but rather slow and steady, predictable forward movement. Due to the nature of people involved, the amount of information involved and stiffening traditions. Nowdays most of those who become scientists are not jacks of all trades but rather masters of one thing. Most will never do anything worth mentioning or remembering. In that aspect scientists and artists are not that different.
So. Like that artist in the art gallery:
You should stop relating yourselves with people who you're not part of. You can't break the rules if your ultimate purpose is to live by them. Nor can you achieve anything by breaking all the rules.
>>7744107
Anything anyone creates specifically to turn a profit is not art.
