MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

3 Women Accused Neil deGrasse Tyson of Sexual Misconduct. He Says Evidence Matters, and He’s Right.

#MeToo has come for the popular astrophysicist. Let's withhold judgement.

TysonPictureGroup/Sipa USA/NewscomNeil deGrasse Tyson, the well-known astrophysicist, TV host, and general science enthusiast (whose shtick is sometimes obnoxious and easily criticized), has been accused of sexual misbehavior by three different women. He addressed the allegations in a Facebook post on Saturday.

"In any claim, evidence matters," wrote Tyson. "Evidence always matters."

He's right. We should not naively presume that all claims are true, absent corroboration or supporting evidence. The public should withhold further judgement until Fox and National Geographic—Tyson's employers—complete their investigations.

In the meantime, it's helpful to consider each accusation separately, because they are quite different. The most serious of the incidents allegedly occurred in the early 1980s, while Tyson was a graduate student: A classmate whom Tyson briefly dated claims he drugged and raped her. Here was what Tyson had to say about it:

According to her blog posts, the drug and rape allegation comes from an assumption of what happened to her during a night that she cannot remember. It is as though a false memory had been implanted, which, because it never actually happened, had to be remembered as an evening she doesn't remember. Nor does she remember waking up the next morning and going to the office. I kept a record of everything she posted, in case her stories morphed over time. So this is sad, which, for me, defies explanation.

It's very hard to know who is telling the truth here. As with the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, a great deal of time has passed, and distant memories are tricky things. (At least one of the allegations against Kavanaugh seems unlikely to be accurate, for instance.) We may never know more than we know now. If this accuser has some way to corroborate her account, she should do that. Otherwise, it seems unfair to obligate Tyson to disprove a claim from so long ago.

Tyson's second accuser, a colleague at a conference in 2009, made a much less serious claim: She said she asked him to pose for a picture, and he took notice of a tattoo of the solar system on her arm. He was curious whether Pluto was part of the tattoo, and allegedly searched "up her dress." But she was wearing a sleeveless dress—Pluto would have been near the shoulder, perhaps under a strap. I presume Tyson interacts with thousands of fans each year. Slightly misjudging one such fan's comfort level after a photo request doesn't seem like much of a scandal, in this context.

The third accusation is the one that really requires proper investigation: A former assistant of Tyson's says he made her feel uncomfortable, accused her of being "distracting," and took actions that implied romantic interest. Tyson admits that he invited her over for wine and cheese—something he does often for visitors, he claims—which she accepted.

"Afterwards, she came into my office to told me she was creeped out by the wine & cheese evening," Tyson wrote. "She viewed the invite as an attempt to seduce her, even though she sat across the wine & cheese table from me, and all conversation had been in the same vein as all other conversations we ever had."

Tyson admitted he offered her a special handshake he had learned from a Native American elder, which involved taking the pulse of the other person.

"I've never forgotten that handshake, and I save it in appreciation of people with whom I've developed new friendships," wrote Tyson. He says he apologized to the assistant, she accepted his apology, and then quit the job.

Tyson may have been too friendly with this assistant. (I wonder, though, how many people who find the wine-and-cheese invite creepy also think the Pence Rule is an affront to gender equality.) He may have harassed this employee, or made work uncomfortable for her. He may also just be a demanding and difficult-to-work-with major celebrity. Perhaps he did nothing wrong at all. His employers should certainly look into it.

In the meantime, there is no need to preemptively declare him a sex jerk. Despite what the more militant members of the #MeToo movement seem to think, automatically believing accusations is bad practice in a world where not all encounters are black and white.

Photo Credit: PictureGroup/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    [INSERT GREAT URANUS JOKE HERE]

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Perhaps one of the complaints was Neil deGrasse Tyson having the Mutilation of Uranus on his office wall.

  • KevinP||

    Q: How is the Starship Enterprise similar to toilet paper?

    A: They both circle Uranus looking for Klingons.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Ahem, well actually, the Starship Enterprise is almost never in the vicinity of Uranus. *adjusts spectacles*

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    To boldly go where no married man would dare to go.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    A scrotum cozy store?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Sex is somewhat like Star Trek; to boldly where no man has gone, at least recently...

  • Alcibiades||

    He may, or may not, be guilty of sexual abuse of women.

    He does make stuff up though (and he's a narrcissistic jerk):

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/02/neil-tysons-
    final-words-on-his-quote-fabrications-my-bad/

  • Tony||

    Now it's Trump's turn. He can pick any lie from the last 45 minutes or so.

  • Alcibiades||

    Shitstain...go fuck yourself.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Right on cue.
    Reason, there's Uranus.

  • Tony||

    The time for Uranus jokes expired early this morning. Black hole jokes are still welcome.

  • DiegoF||

    As long as no one starts up with the brown dwarf jokes I'll be cool.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You leave Tyrone Lannister out of this.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How about jokes where you're raping young boys? Oh wait, that's likely true.

  • ||

    (and he's a narrcissistic jerk)

    Yup. Sex jerk is out. Looks like I'm stuck thinking of him as a regular jerk.

  • soldiermedic76||

    He has a history of playing loose with facts. His attempts at painting Christianity as the big anti-science Boogeyman in his Nova Series has been roundly criticized by science historians. He also peddled a lot of urban myths in that episode. He loves to lecture on science and history that are outside his area of expertise, often with easily detected mistakes. His knowledge of biology is barely greater than most college freshman, but that hasn't stopped him in the past pontificating about it. He did at least reverse his unscientific opposition to Genetic Engineered crops (only after getting beat over the head with the data repeatedly (.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Cosmo not Nova. The mistake was pointed out and I admit I made a mistake in the name of the show.

  • BigT||

    "He may also just be a demanding and difficult-to-work-with major celebrity"

    Yes, because he ain't no scientist.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    He also made up stuff about how Coiumbus' voyage was all government financed and that's why the US government needs to fund space exploration.

  • operagost||

    Only if the US government wants to commit genocide on other planets.

  • Tony||

    Shit balls, I had a friend over for wine and cheese just last week, and we hugged before parting ways. Our pelvises might have even touched. Thank god I'm not famous.

  • Ron||

    don't worry no one will ever admit to being near you

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I didn't know that opening up a bottle of wine was an invitation to have sex. That explains what happened that Christmas Eve.

  • Jimothy||

    I really shouldn't have had so much wine.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    It's nice that you can still be friends

  • Fats of Fury||

    So you cut the cheese and whined all night. Just like you do here.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    ^^^

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You have your own little corner of fame as the dumbest douche on Reason's comments section, so you'll always have that. Otherwise I can't imagine you having to worry about anyone admitting publicly to physical contact with you.

  • Longtobefree||

    Nope.
    Accusation implies guilt.
    Immediate firing, ban from all social media, and no book deals again, ever.
    And that is just for starters.
    Gotta treat him like a white man to avoid discrimination charges.

  • creech||

    I'd really like to see if he made any public comments regarding Kavanaugh's accusers.

  • Ron||

    My thinking as well and considering his past political comments I pretty sure which way he leans

  • Alcibiades||

    Tyson is a run-of-the-mill lefty tribal hack, he isn't even a real scientist, if by the term scientist you mean actually doing science and not running his mouth off before his "clapping seal" of an audience.

  • Alcibiades||

    Tyson is a run-of-the-mill lefty tribal hack, he isn't even a real scientist, if by the term scientist you mean actually doing science and not running his mouth off before his "clapping seal" of an audience.

  • DiegoF||

    He at least has credentials. He doesn't do research; he just does popularization and administration (I think he runs the planetarium). Bill Nye on the other hand is a TV comedian whose kiddie show stage costume included a lab coat as part of the character he played; he was no more a scientist than Captain Kangaroo was a captain. But he had gotten a big enough head, because organizations that did do actual science kept inviting him for public involvement in their outreach to children and such, to eventually think that he was in fact an actual scientist making actual scientific contributions. He's certainly not a stupid guy per se, and I think his original show was indeed quite good (I never saw it) but it was getting pretty painful to see his weirdly inflated impression of himself.

  • BYODB||

    I believe Nye does have some kind of engineering degree, at least, but yeah his ego is the size of Uranus.

  • DiegoF||

    It was indeed his major in college. But it's a bachelors, and he's not a working engineer. If he had a research degree or did actual engineering as a profession, I'd be more than willing to give him that. But he does neither. And he damn sure ain't no scientist. He gets invited to do stuff as a science celebrity, like I said, for very understandable publicity reasons. Most people would understand what is going on, and be happy to be doing what he does to get kids enthused about science. Like the bus drivers and sewer technicians adored Jackie Gleason and Art Carney back in the day for the respect he gave their positions with the public; they were always being honored and asked to give speeches and so forth, I think they were even made members of the unions. They were both quite proud, but I don't think they started to think they actually drove a bus or fixed sewers.

    He's not a stupid guy; and he should be proud of the credentials that he does have, and what he does for a living--namely, get kids excited about science by hosting a kids show about science. That's a life well lived, in my book. But he thinks he is a real, actual scientist for a living, rather than simply a talented kids' performer with a lab coat as a stage costume.

  • DiegoF||

    One of my favorite things said on the subject...Sarah Palin: "Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am. He's a kids' show actor. He's not a scientist."

    I thought that was hilarious, and showed a sense of self-awareness and humor on her part, to put herself (her media reputation) up as a foil like that. Not too many people in her position would be able to do that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would consider whoever is p,aging The Doctor on 'Doctor Who' as more of a scientific authority than Bill Nye. Coincidentally, Bill Nye looks like Matt Smith if he stopped regenerating halfway to becoming Peter Capaldi, and kept integrated both styles of dress.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "The Doctor on 'Doctor Who' as more of a scientific authority than Bill Nye."

    I'm pretty sure DeForest Kelly has more authority. But damn it, he's a doctor not an engineer.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Say what you will about her, Sarah had (and has) class. At the least, a hell of a lot more class than her mouth-breathing detractors.

  • BakaPenguin||

    For someone so willing to bash others science credentials, you seem oblivious to the idea of research.

    Let's start with his character, Bill Nye the Science Guy. That's Science Guy, not The Scientist. He is a guy who educates about science. On the show (I'm a kid of the 90's, yes I watched the hell out of that show) he performs simple experiments and discusses many established scientific theories boiled down for young kids and a 22 minute run time. This idea that Bill Nye is some egotistical maniac claiming to be a scientist is complete bunk.

    He is a mechanical engineer with a BS degree from Cornell. He worked at Boeing and helped develop mechanical systems on the 747. He left that career path to pursue a career in getting kids interested in science and engineering. Yeah, he's a real monster.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He certain,y is a progtard tool for AGW hysteria.

  • BakaPenguin||

    For someone so willing to bash others science credentials, you seem oblivious to the idea of research.

    Let's start with his character, Bill Nye the Science Guy. That's Science Guy, not The Scientist. He is a guy who educates about science. On the show (I'm a kid of the 90's, yes I watched the hell out of that show) he performs simple experiments and discusses many established scientific theories boiled down for young kids and a 22 minute run time. This idea that Bill Nye is some egotistical maniac claiming to be a scientist is complete bunk.

    He is a mechanical engineer with a BS degree from Cornell. He worked at Boeing and helped develop mechanical systems on the 747. He left that career path to pursue a career in getting kids interested in science and engineering. Yeah, he's a real monster.

  • Nardz||

    And now he pushes for global socialism under the guise of "combating" climate change - and he does so using the pretense that he's a scientific expert.

  • Alcibiades||

    Here's a real scientist ripping BNTSC a new one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nh-tXGu-sM

  • DiegoF||

    LOL see what I mean? He is indeed smart enough to try to play this in a decently clever way. (Though obviously he has straight-up embarrassed himself enough on other occasions.)

    What do you think about Lindzen? "I don't know. I'm not an expert on his ideas." Not "I don't know anything about climate, and am not an expert on any scientific topic whatsoever." He's just not an expert in Lindzen's ideas, which might suggest to someone inclined to trust him that it's because Lindzen's are fringe and thus something a mainstream scientist like himself would not bother being familiar with, the same way he'd be unfamiliar with the details of a phlogiston theory. Also he is on the advisory board of the "Union of Concerned Scientists," which is in fact not an organization of scientists at all but just an environmentalist activist group that has named itself that. I'd make him a top advisor too if I were them, since he is an expert in public communications.

  • DiegoF||

    Oh Jeez just saw the rest. Now that is a bit painful.

  • BakaPenguin||

    Really? Richard Lindzin? The guy who has been chastised by his own peers at MIT for his bullshit? Try harder.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    In the meantime, it's helpful to consider each accusation separately, because they are quite different.

    Taking the median accusation and looking at the trends, the consensus is that there is a marked rise in the accusation levels over the past three decades.

    Fine, you want to be serious about this? The second and third accusations should be tossed. These women may have gotten some traction with them at the beginning of #MeToo, but in the cold light of a less hysterical phase of the movement, they don't look like anything. Normal interactions between adults. The one serious accusation, the first one, we don't have enough data to even speculate about here. Default position: innocent.

  • ||

    The one serious accusation, the first one, we don't have enough data to even speculate about here.

    Says you! "I kept a record of everything she posted," is pretty weird. "My lawyers have looked through what she posted," seems more reasonable. Default position: Lifetime ban from SCOTUS.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    In one of the stories, Tyson comes off sounding like a Smoove B article from the Onion.

  • Alcibiades||

    I've read all Carl Sagan's books.
    I may not have agreed with his politics, but the man was a real scientist and could really write about the joys of scientific discovery for everyone and how a kid from Brooklyn could reach for the stars.

    This hack Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't qualified to carry Sagan's pocket calculator.

  • Tony||

    Why go after one of the few popularizers of science? How is he so bad? He's not even that political, assuming the crab up your ass is about him not sucking Republican tit.

  • Alcibiades||

    I'd suggest you ram a crab up your own ass but I've got too much respect for crabs.

  • DiegoF||

    Like the lice, or the full-sized fellas?

  • Alcibiades||

    Both compared to the human shitstain.

  • Ron||

    His TV show was more about attacking religion than it was about science so from that we can infere his political leanings

  • Tony||

    You mean he believed in real shit instead of fake shit?

  • ||

    You mean he believed in real shit instead of fake shit?

    By 'real shit' you mean people witnessed it and it's been repeated or the stuff that Tyson normally talks about an believes in?

  • Ron||

    its fine to not have a religious belief but don't try to make science the moral arbiter of what is good and bad. we've already seen the massive moral failings of science in action and when i watch a show about science I want to see science not his personal opinion on religion

  • Tony||

    No war has ever been fought over a disagreement over scientific hypotheses.

    Competing hypotheses over which version sky grandpa is real has killed like 25% of the human population at times.

  • ||

    No war has ever been fought over a disagreement over scientific hypotheses.

    Are you trying to Godwin yourself?

  • soldiermedic76||

    I am sure Tony is one of those who will argue that a certain failed, vegetarian, Austrian painter was actually a Christian, because his parents had him baptized when he was a baby.

  • DenverJ||

    I was thinking the Soviets, but, I guess socialism=socialism.

  • Longtobefree||

    "No war has ever been fought over a disagreement over scientific hypotheses."

    Uh- - - - -
    Hypothesis; Jews are subhuman and must be exterminated.
    War was fought over that one. The last numbered war.

  • NashTiger||

    FALSE

    Eugenics, one of the tentpoles of the Progressive Era

  • Tony||

    None of this had anything to do with science. Talk about "scientism" or whatever buzzword you pseudo-educated hillbillies are tossing around these days. I don't necessarily recommend reading Nazi literature, but the mythos it's based in is both wackadoodle and explicitly Christian. I was referring, however, specifically to the religious wars that predated the 20th century ones. That is, they are named the religious wars for a reason. Wake me when we have a science war that doesn't involve merely some strongly opinionated particle physicists writing furiously on chalkboards.

  • ||

    A prog is chastising hillbillies over buzzwords.

    Good one.

  • ||

    I don't necessarily recommend reading Nazi literature, but the mythos it's based in is both wackadoodle and explicitly Christian.

    No they aren't. You have to be wackadoodle to interpret them that way.

    I was referring, however, specifically to the religious wars that predated the 20th century ones.

    Well, that would be stupid unless when you said 'like 25%' you meant more 'like 2.5%'. The Dynastic wars in Asia and the colonization of the Americas were far more deadly both in absolute and relative population numbers by about an order of magnitude. The idea that religious Holy Wars were somehow exceptionally devastating doesn't stand up to even a trivial examination of facts.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Yeah because, in the big picture, Christianity teaches us to kill our neighbor because he's a jew and the Nazis took that as gospel.

  • Nardz||

    The 30 years war and Muslim conquests were pretty devastating, but so were those you mentioned, the numbered world wars, and Mongol conquests (to name just a few).
    Religion is hardly the single most destructive motivation for war, but has been a complicating factor since monotheism took over from paganism.

  • operagost||

    "None of this had anything to do with science. "

    No true Scotsman.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Still repeating this discredited leftist trope, I see.

  • newshutz||

    Both the communists and facists thought they were following the science.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Look, I grew up with Carl Sagan and I honestly don't even remember seeing or hearing him say anything political. Tyson has appeared at least nine times on Bill Maher's program. Now I don't know what he said, or whether I disagreed or agreed with it, but when you appear nine times on Bill Maher's program, you're not a potted plant, you're there to wax political. I like my science popularizers more science-ey, less political.

  • Tony||

    The problem is that one half of the American political spectrum simply doesn't believe science it doesn't like. The president of the United States just said he trusts his gut over the research of experts. If there was any time for scientists to be political...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The problem is that one half of the American political spectrum simply doesn't believe science it doesn't like.

    Uhh... no, about 85-90% of the political spectrum doesn't believe science it doesn't like.

    The president of the United States just said he trusts his gut over the research of experts

    Stop looking to elected officials for science.

  • Tony||

    They really need to be guided by science when they make decisions that affect us all. Don't you think?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They really need to be guided by science when they make decisions that affect us all. Don't you think?

    I don't want them making decisions for me.

  • Tony||

    Yes you do.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The science of statistics serves up some pretty firm conclusions about what happens when a small group of authorities make decisions that affect us all.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Pepys the Cat||

    Which science? Modern science or lobotomy science?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Science that comes the conclusions I like.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    At least atrump isn't motivated by Marxism. Not like you and your evil friends.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, many of the "experts" brought us humans more misery than good.

    Trump's gut instincts are more Libertarian than most of the Reason staff put together.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I think Tony makes a strong argument for Scientific Socialism.

    *joke*

    My point is science is not political. The people who historicall have tried to make science political usually are of the social meddling type straddling the left side of the political spectrum.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Creationism? (lol)

    left - right = zero

  • ||

    The problem is that one half of the American political spectrum simply doesn't believe science it doesn't like.

    The upper half? The Western half? The socialist half?

    Because if it's half, it's split pretty evenly between the left and right.

  • Tony||

    No, it's really not. And if you think that, you're the problem.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes, it is decidedly tilted in the direction of the left. I listed a variety of topics that the left is completely anti-scientific in regards to.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes, it is decidedly tilted in the direction of the left. I listed a variety of topics that the left is completely anti-scientific in regards to.

  • The Knuckle||

    I recall a story or study that found conservatives (generally) had better science literacy than liberals. Searching for a reliable source on this.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Like creationism?

  • ||

    No, it's really not. And if you think that, you're the problem.

    Because I'm inherently morally wrong? Because people of a certain ideology are infallibly correct? You know because a sky daddy told you so, right?

    See below, for a political ideology that cleaves so hard to public education, the leftist ideology does a shitty job of conditioning its wards to regurgitate science facts known firsthand by uneducated idiots generations earlier.

  • Tony||

    The problem is you care more about your political tribe winning (something?) than being on the right side of evidence. By contrast many of us on the left chose that tribe specifically because it wasn't a bunch of science-denying assholes.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Tony this remark is the ultimate in hypocrisy. You are by far the most tribalist individual on this thread right now.

  • DenverJ||

    Huh, all those right wingers and their unreasonable fear of GMOs, vaccines, and the role of solar activity in global warming...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're right. Rejection of science and rational thought is clearly the province of the left. Best you help thin their numbers and take your own life.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Creationism, goober.
    And vaxxers (even crazy Rand Paul)
    Any number of wacko conspiracies

  • soldiermedic76||

    Actually, the level of science denialism is bi-partisan. Look at the stupidity of those opposed to genetic engineering of plants (the majority are on the left), the stupidity of the left in opposing nuclear power as a means to combat climate change, the lefts insistent that there is no difference between male and female brains (at the same time insisting that transgenders are trapped in the body of a sex they don't identify with) despite evidence to the contrary. Sex linked traits in the brains development are documented in all other mammals, why would humans be different? In fact, other than climate change, and possibly evolution, the left is even more anti-science than the right.

  • Ron||

    add to your list the anti vaxers of this world are dominated by the left

  • soldiermedic76||

    True but given the large minority of that movement who are on the right, it is more bipartisan, though dominated by the left as you point out.

  • DiegoF||

    Health science quackery in general has a robust presence on the right as well, of course certainly including (gulp) libertarians. In fact a recent leftist meme is to make fun of conservative podcasters like Ben Shapiro, Dana Loesch, etc. for their many herbal supplement sponsors and the like--they are more dependent on "fringe" sponsors than is the media with a more mainstream perspective, and again there is a certain market for these things in the Christian, libertarian, and general socon communities. (And since rightists who oppose these things are more likely to say leave them the fuck alone; whereas leftists are more likely to demand eradication by force!, the anti-woo lefties end up looking like the more zealous defenders of scientific orthodoxy and certainly fancy themselves as such. Of course try them on things where the scientific community has shown itself, due to its prog sensibilities, less dedicated to publicly dispelling myths, such as environmentalist or secondhand smoke alarmism, or human sexuality, and see where the progs are. It's more a cargo cult thing than being actually interested in science itself.)

  • DiegoF||

    ...What is also interesting is that in Europe various of what is over here very left-leaning, hippieish woo often maintains its older, cultural rightist baggage. Like a lot of spirituality, alternative medicine, and of course paganism--as well as anti-GMO, environmentalism in general, animal rights, etc.--have a much more robust presence on the Right than they do here. Often in fact the newly bougie Left is only now playing catch-up.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Bullshit.

  • ||

    Look at the stupidity of those opposed to genetic engineering of plants (the majority are on the left)

    You don't even have to get that technical. There was a meme going around a while ago about the number of people who believed Washington Irving's version of Christopher Columbus (that he proved Spanish Catholic Scholars wrong and the Earth round) and the left/right split was pretty even. The number of leftists I know who experience a disconnect between 'buy/grow local' and suffering from scurvy in the wintertime is significantly different than zero. The fact that either side has unlearned stuff known to illiterate pirates a handful of centuries ago doesn't speak well for either party, especially the one that has championed public education so thoroughly.

  • soldiermedic76||

    In my introductory introductory animal science course our professor had a graphic showing the amount of carbon per egg produced in producing and transporting eggs. It compared conventional, large operations vs locally grown. Guess which one had the lower impact?
    The same also when you look at the difference between a kG of beef produced in conventional ag, organic and grass fed, the same in milk and the same per bushel of wheat. Organic and locally grown all have greater impact on the environment in almost every category measured.

  • DenverJ||

    They don't even teach the kids cursive anymore

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In fact, other than climate change, and possibly evolution, the left is even more anti-science than the right.

    Their believe in climate change is entirely religious in nature.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes it is, however, I don't see anything that contradicts the underlying theory that man impacts the climate (how could he not) and introducing more carbon into the atmosphere will result in a measurable change in heat and energy retention.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Which is redundant on my part, heat is energy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • DenverJ||

    Sure, it could. But co2 is 0.0391 percent of the atmosphere. 0.0391 percent. How big an effect could it really produce? It's less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
    Water vapor, OTOH, can be up to 4%.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Like creationism?

  • BigT||

    "...other than climate change, and possibly evolution, the left is even more anti-science than the right."

    On global warming the left is decidedly more anti-science. Among other things they try to suppress discussion, purge non-believers, and proselytize. It's a religion in all but name.

  • soldiermedic76||

    All of which is true BigT, I was trying to be magnanimous, because I didn't want to devolve into a debate on Climate Change with someone with such a nebolous grasp of the scientific process as Tony.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And also because I am not an atmospheric scientist and it is outside my area of expertise. The data and models appear to be supporting the theory at this point but there is reason to be skeptical (all scientist should always remain skeptical).

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The problem is that one half of the American political spectrum simply doesn't believe science it doesn't like."

    You mean the ones that deny sexual dimorphism and IQ research, right?

  • Tony||

    The first thing you mention is a matter of semantics, and IQ is junk science.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Your proof, Tony?

  • Tony||

    IQ is a measure of how well someone takes an IQ test. That's all it measures. We can't even define intelligence thoroughly enough to measure it in a meaningful way.

  • soldiermedic76||

    That is an opinion it isn't actual refutation. The evidence supporting IQ and it's predictive value in life success is volumes. You are pushing pseudo-scientific Social Justice shit now to refute science. And you have the gall to criticize the right as anti-science. The lack of self awareness in yourself is simply astounding.

  • Tony||

    I criticize the right for cherry picking what it thinks is science in order to justify a) racism and b) climate change denial. They really shouldn't even bother.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Just like you cherry pick science to back up your pseudoscience. Tony, you really are not nearly as intelligent or self reflective as you think you are. You level of introspection and deductive reasoning is mediocre at best.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, your statements just prove our points. More unsupported nonsense about racism, and AGW. When you are the true racist, and your belief in AGW is far more akin to religion than rational science.

  • DenverJ||

    Meh. He's sorta got a point. Some highly intelligent people will score low on IQ tests for a variety of reasons, including reading disabilities, etc. Also, most tests tend to measure a "modern" mindset, so that members of, say, pastoral communities will make different associations (for instance, in a "which of these things doesn't belong" test, you may have cattle, sheep, deer, and dogs. For a shephard, dogs would be part of the set but not deer, whereas a modern mind would say that deer is part of the set but not dog. That is an extremely simplified example.)

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Intelligence can only ever be measured through the distorting lenses of environment and socialization, because that is how intelligence is ever *demonstrated* in any practical sense. And IQ tests are no different. They do not measure some intrinsic innate ability of the test taker. They measure a convolution of a whole range of factors.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Of course you would say that. You're a weak minded idiot.

  • ||

    IQ is a measure of how well someone takes an IQ test. That's all it measures. We can't even define intelligence thoroughly enough to measure it in a meaningful way.

    Which is weird because we can infinitely vary the tests and conduct experiments repeatedly and, despite nearly centuries of data, you assert that our models of intelligence are off base and poor.

    Certainly doesn't bode well for the predictions derived from one-off data sets on climate.

  • Tony||

    But what are you measuring? I can't spear hook a fish like someone native to Vanuatu, while that person can't quote Shakespeare. It's hard to believe we even still talk about IQ. Intelligence quotient? Really? That's something that can be boiled down to a number on a scale?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Skills don't equal the ability to deduce. You are comparing apples too oranges and also making the mistake of confusing intelligence and education.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You don't understand the concept of intellect? FFS, go look it up you moron.

  • ||

    IQ is junk science

    That's weird because it can be repeatably measured and predicted.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Tony falls into the mistake in thinking science is a popularity contest (he refers to consensus below). He belongs to the Church of Scientism. He doesn't realize his Scientism bears as much resemblance to real science as astrology does to astronomy (and for much the same reasons).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But WHAT do IQ tests really measure? Intelligence? Or some mixture of innate intelligence caused by genetics, environmental factors that enhance/diminish a person's innate abilities, socialization impacts that are nearly impossible to control for, and the savviness of a test taker?

  • Pepys the Cat||

    "IQ is junk science."

    Which IQ test? Stanford-Benet or Wechsler?

    They don't measure the same things.

  • Tony||

    Correct. One measure's a subject's ability to score well on the Stanford-Benet test while the other tests a subject's ability to score well on the Wechsler test.

    This isn't sour grapes. I did exceptionally well on mine.

  • Pepys the Cat||

    So you don't know anything about it. Got it.

  • Tony||

    Unlike astrophysics I do happen to know a little something about the science of the mind, and I understand that IQ is still widely used as a utilitarian measure and can even be predictive of certain behavior. But in the end it's a tautological abstraction. We measure intelligence by how well people do on tests of intelligence. What we haven't done is thoroughly define intelligence beyond the scope of what's on that test.

    And besides, any time anyone brings it up in a political context is because they're too much of a pussy to just say that their real point is that black people are genetically inferior (another mostly meaningless measure).

  • Pepys the Cat||

    But that isn't what the Wechsler does. Or is even for.

    Which is why I said you didn't know anything about it.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Your level of bias just shows how unscientific you are Tony. You can see no reason other than racist why anyone would discuss I? Really?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Unlike astrophysics I do happen to know a little something about the science of the mind, and I understand that IQ is still widely used as a utilitarian measure and can even be predictive of certain behavior. "

    Predictive = real

    You understand nothing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Tony, you didn't. Stop lying.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You do realize that scientist believe arguments of semantics are important because you have to have a common definition in order to have an intelligent conversation?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "IQ is junk science."

    hahahaha!

    IQ Denier!

    What a clown!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    IQ research?
    Why am I not surprised to hear that coming from you

  • buybuydandavis||

    hahahahhaa!
    IQ denier!

    So many NPCs!

    Just *so* easy to yank your chain. So predictable. You're like little wind up toys.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I didn't say I don't "believe" in IQ. I just don't think it measures what you all tend to think that it measures.

    IQ does not measure a quantity that can be easily and straightforwardedly reduced to an innate intrinsic ability of a human being. IQ is a convolution of a whole host of variables that cannot be easily untangled from each other.

  • buybuydandavis||

    IQ tests measure IQ, a quantity with known and strong correlates to a host of specific abilities. That's the whole point. But thanks for playing.

    IQ Denier!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, many people take IQ results much further and try to claim that it represents a person's innate talents. Such as the so-called "race realist" crowd. It doesn't. It measures IQ, which is a complex convolution of a whole host of factors, some innate, some extrinsic. Like Tony said above, it is a bit tautological - IQ measures whatever IQ measures.

  • Pepys the Cat||

    "Well, many people"

    Oh ok, go talk to them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Many say people that ..."

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Rulers measure whatever rulers measure"

    Deep

    "race realist"

    Clusters don't exist in gene space? Genes don't exist?

    IQ, genes, evolution.

    Any other Science Denial you'd like to attest to to show your adherence to the postmodernist theocracy?

    Shout your faith, ally!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A properly calibrated ruler measures the physical quantity of length.

    A properly calibrated IQ test measures... what exactly?

  • buybuydandavis||

    A quantity that is predictive for a great any things.

    Much like "length".

    That you don't understand how abstractions work is not my problem.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A quantity that is predictive for a great any things.

    Much like "length".

    No, not like "length". That is my point. I can calibrate a ruler (in principle) by flying to Paris and marking off divisions on my ruler based on an international standard meter bar. Can I do the same for calibrating an IQ test? No. Can I even define, with any sort of rigorous precision, the physical quantity that an IQ test measures, like a ruler measures length? No.

    But this is pointless. You are just trolling. All you want to do is play these debate games and try to catch people in gotchas. Much like earlier when you were supposedly so outraged by the idea of "creating an underclass of non-voting immigrants" when IT WAS THE VERY SAME IDEA THAT YOU SUPPORTED. All you want to do is throw invective and argue for the sake of arguing.

    Perhaps when YOU have something worthwhile and constructive to add to the discussion then some progress can be made in the communication of real knowledge.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Clusters don't exist in gene space? Genes don't exist?

    Well of course they do.

    But it's a long way to go from there, to a conclusion of "blacks are inferior to whites because IQ tests".

  • buybuydandavis||

    Indeed it is.

    But you went there nevertheless.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, you are just trolling. Trying to "trigger the libs". You know as well as I do what the so-called "race realists" use IQ tests for. They use them to make outlandish conclusions based on a very flawed measure of intelligence. If you wanted to have some discussion on the validity of IQ tests then go ahead and present your evidence. But I think you just want to troll.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I do admit I enjoy rubbing people's noses in their own idiocy when they're self righteous preachers of it. I consider it a civic duty, and find it a pleasure. How I troll is predominantly by *making a better argument*, but I don't deny myself the pleasure of some panache in my rhetoric when I do it.

    If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right!

    Tony is an idiot, and I enjoyed helping him beclown himself.

    race realist: someone who believes races are real

    Which you seemed to have granted. Do you flagellate as a racist yourself over it, or are you simply hypoctritical on this point?

    That you have an immunization strategy of discounting any argument counter to your many faiths by ad hominem "Racist!" shrieks is your own mental health issue.

    Level 2 immunization strategy: When Level 1 fails, discount the conflict with your faith as "trolling".

    Above all else, never actually confront the arguments. So Faith demands!

    Besides your ad hominem by innuendo, do you have anything substantive to add to this little debate?

    Something like "this is true", "this is false"?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There are many different types of intelligence. The most important for life success happens to be social intelligence. IQ tests don't measure that one.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Evidence that social intelligence is independent of IQ?

    You don't understand what IQ is if you think a cognitive measure is independent of it.

  • Tony||

    The irony is devotees of the concept of IQ are in the same breath trashing eugenics. Not because they are essentially birds of a feather, but because they think one is on Team Red and the other Team Blue, because they're idiots.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "If people have different levels of intelligence, of course they should be bred like cattle by the State"

    Another Socialist Moment brought to you by Tony.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    race realist: someone who believes races are real

    That is not what the term means in the context of alt-right discourse and you know it. Most anyone with some sense believes that races are real at least on a superficial level. But a "race realist", among the Alt-Right, is someone who believes not only that races are real, but that there are vast differences between the races that may be studied and measured, and the biggest one that they like to squawk about is differences in intelligence among racial groups as measured by IQ tests. They don't like to talk about how flawed of a test the IQ test is, that no one even knows what it truly measures, and so to draw conclusions based on racial attributes using the results of this test is highly suspect. They use a scientific idea to justify their racist views. Is that you?

    Here is an article discussing why the argument that there are large genetic differences among races affecting intelligence is a flawed argument. You're welcome.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Race realist is a biological theory.
    Alt-Right is a political preference.

    Despite some correlation, these are different concepts.

    The Lefty habit of endlessly conflating concepts is poor semantic hygiene. Be better.

    That article you pointed to was some guy talking out of his ass. Nature is not compelled to distribute IQ according to some a priori theorizing, and there's no need to theorize about how the numbers must come out because they can and have been measured. People take IQ tests. Distributions of the scores can be compiled and compared. They have been. The numbers are different.

    All kinds of things are different between races. There is no need to get your panties in a twist over IQ differences by race or ethnicity in particular unless you're a smartist and view people less intelligent than you are as inhuman vermin. I don't. Do you?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I get upset when people start using the results of IQ tests as a pseudo-scientific justification for their racism, because it gives a veneer of respectability to some downright ugly and awful views. IQ tests DO NOT MEASURE INTELLIGENCE. They measure *something* which is a huge mix of variables that are somewhat correlated with intelligence. The people who run around using IQ tests to justify genetic inferiority of some race over another are abusing science to push an agenda. JUST LIKE certain people abuse the science of genetics to push an agenda against GMOs, or abuse the science of geology to push an agenda against fracking, or abuse the science of nuclear physics to push an agenda against nuclear power. It is not "anti-science" to note any of this.

    Race realist is a biological theory.

    No it isn't. It is what the alt-righters call themselves. All you are doing is arguing for the sake of arguing. Trying to devise clever traps for people to fall into. Grow up.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I get upset"

    A tell for cognitive dissonance.

    "IQ tests DO NOT MEASURE INTELLIGENCE. "

    The thing we can measure is unreal. Imprecise. Vague. Undefined.

    But the thing we can't measure is TOTALLY REAL.
    CAPITAL LETTERS REAL.

    "They measure *something* which is a huge mix of variables that are somewhat correlated with intelligence. "

    How about we just stop at "IQ tests measure *something*"? Turns out that *something* is distributed differently for different races and ethnicities.

    Also turns out that *something* is predictive of a lot of abilities and life outcomes. Get over it.

    And you should realize that you've already given up the game on INTELLIGENCE once you've granted the *correlation* of IQ with intelligence. In terms of the evaluation of populations, correlation is all that's needed to show population effects.

    "The people who run around using IQ tests to justify genetic inferiority of some race..."

    *People* differ in a great many capabilities partially because of their genes. Strength, speed, coordination, eyesight, hearing, and INTELLIGENCE.

    Implicit in your tizzy over racial differences in IQs is the smartist bigotry that people with lower INTELLIGENCE are *inferior* in some ethically relevant way.

    For people who don't loathe the less intelligent, ethnic differences in intelligence are nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. Just one of many traits differing by race and ethnicity. There is no need to stick your head in the sand over reality.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    IQ tests measure *something*. This something is a complex mix of variables. Some of these variables are based on genetics. Some of these variables are based on environment. Furthermore, the variables themselves are also correlated with each other.

    So when a person says "the results of IQ tests correlate with race and therefore races differ in intelligence", it is an ignorant statement, because IQ tests do not measure intelligence directly. It is more accurate to say "the results of IQ tests correlate with some collection of variables, which are all also correlated with each other, that correlate in some way with race. Therefore, the connection between intelligence and race is indirect and fuzzy. It MAY BE the case that they are directly connected. But we have no way of knowing, because we have no way of calibrating IQ tests correctly, or even DEFINING what precisely is meant by the term intelligence, let alone coming up with concrete rational distinctions between members of different races." The alt-righters gloss all over this fuzziness and present a straightforward picture of what they believe is the truth - that IQ measures intelligence, IQ varies with races, therefore intelligence varies with race - that is ultimately misleading because it does not cover any of these ambiguities.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "So when a person says "the results of IQ tests correlate with race and therefore races differ in intelligence", it is an ignorant statement, because IQ tests do not measure intelligence directly."
    i.e.
    "I don't understand what correlation means"

    It's just math. Get over it, Math Denier.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Implicit in your tizzy over racial differences in IQs is the smartist bigotry that people with lower INTELLIGENCE are *inferior* in some ethically relevant way.

    This is absurd. I have said no such thing. I don't think people of lower intelligence are necessarily inferior based on that alone. It's the alt-righters who use the results of IQ tests to justify their racism who are guilty of this "smartism".

  • buybuydandavis||

    If there is nothing wrong with having a lower IQ, why is it wrong to note that the distribution of IQs by ethnicity are not identical, with some higher and some lower?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is not wrong to make observations. It IS wrong to draw incorrect conclusions from those observations, or to deliberately misinterpret those observations in the service of a narrative. That is what the alt-righters do. They elide by the nuances and complexities of IQ and use that to justify their racist beliefs. IQ is such a limited and poor representation of a person's innate talents and abilities, but they want to rely on the supposed scientific prestige of IQ to reinforce their narrative.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "That is what the alt-righters do. "

    They are so totally in your head. Your every reply is "but the Alt-Right...".

    Every post is about your imaginings about people instead of facts.

    "It is not wrong to make observations."
    So...
    Races are real and IQ distributions vary between ethnicities?
    It seems that you've assented to the facts.

    Realize that Lefty Loons would call *you* Alt-Right for doing so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    IQ distributions vary between ethnicities

    That's not the issue. The issue is the meaning that people impute into that observation. The difference between the Alt-Righters, and people like me, is that the Alt-Righters use IQ as a pseudo-scientific justification for their racism, while I correctly understand IQ as a very flawed and suspect measure of anyone's innate abilities, and can't be used very much if at all to conclude anything about a group's inherent intellectual ability compared to another group's. Wouldn't you agree?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But I get it, you find common cause with the Alt Right because you view them to be on the same team as yourself, as Warriors Fighting The Leftist Scourge. So you are loathe to criticize them even when they deserve it. But people like Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer are not your allies. Don't defend them when they don't deserve it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh and by the way.
    You never did present your evidence purporting to demonstrate the validity of IQ tests for measuring intelligence. Care to do so?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Me: Race realist is a biological theory.
    IQ Denier: No it isn't. It is what the alt-righters call themselves.

    You're losing basic syllogisms now. Get a grip.

    Alt-Righters might also call themselves bowlers. They might actually *be* bowlers. That doesn't make bowling a political ideology and not a sport.

    IQ Denier: All you are doing is arguing for the sake of arguing. Trying to devise clever traps for people to fall into. Grow up.

    Suppose I were arguing for the sake of arguing. It's been known to happen. You'd still be losing that argument. You'd still be wrong. And confused. And emotional. And in the grips of cognitive dissonance.

    And none of our intentions and feelings would matter to the facts of the matter.

    The facts are not about me. They're not about my motivations. They're not about all the WrongFeelz you hallucinate that I have. They're not about your emotional tizzy over the conversation.

    Try to overcome your tizzy over the facts and your feelz about me and get on task about understanding reality.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is no biological field of study called "race realism". That is the term that the alt-righters have coined for themselves in their supposed search for forbidden truth. It is a pseudo-scientific justification for their racism.

    And I'm not an "IQ Denier". I fully accept that IQ tests measure something, which is connected in some very indirect way with intelligence. But what that connection is, is very unclear and not the simplistic soothing picture that the alt-right racists paint.

    And finally, everyone ought to be concerned with bogus scientific-sounding arguments justifying racism, given what a long and sad and violent history such efforts have had. The Nazis believed Jews were inferior and concocted sciency-sounding arguments for it. The eugenicists invented sciency-sounding arguments to justify forcible sterilization. Antebellum slaveowners used fake science to justify slavery. There is a long history of this sort of thing. So there is nothing wrong per se with studying the connection between race and intelligence (if there is one). But there is something very wrong with doing so irresponsibly, which is what the alt-righters do.

  • buybuydandavis||

    There is not a field of study called "water wetism". But it's still wet.

    Genes exist. They're passed from parents to offspring. Given differing local conditions, genetic drift, and procreation largely segregated by distance and tribes over long periods of time, different populations have different distributions of genes. We can *measure* the differences and correlate to locations and tribes.

    Race is real. Race realism.

    Playing "but the Alt-Right thinks so!" with every fact inconvenient for your dogmas doesn't make those facts untrue.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Race realism" as used by the alt-right goes way beyond just affirming that there are differences between races. They take that way further by trying to prove some link between, say, crime rates and innate racial traits. Or to try to prove that stereotypes are backed by some scientific truth. That is the kind of crap that they go through. It is one thing to note that on average, whites are taller than Asians. It is quite another to try to prove that Asians are *genetically* "better at math" than whites. The "race realism" that the alt-righters do encompasses all of this. You are being dishonest when you try to encompass all of this in this "race realism" phrase. YOU DAMN WELL KNOW that there is a difference and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " "Race realism" as used by the alt-right"

    Bowling balls may be used by the alt-right to crush people's heads. Doesn't mean that I do it.

    You should really stop obsessing over the alt-right.

    ' It is quite another to try to prove that Asians are *genetically* "better at math" than whites. '

    The empirical distribution of Japanese American mathematical talent very likely is higher than than that for White Americans. And Hispanic Americans. And Black Americans.

    Do a factor analysis, and you probably find that some of that advantage is genetic.

    I think that's probably true for all of them. Does that make me a racity racist Japanese Supremacist?

    " It is one thing to note that on average, whites are taller than Asians. It is quite another to try to prove that Asians are *genetically* "better at math" than whites. "

    Why? What's the difference that makes the difference?

    Would it also be a horrible thing to think that whites are taller than Asians partially *because* of their genetics? Are you required to believe that all ethnic differences are socially constructed?

    Or are we back to "physical differences don't matter, but mental differences make one or the other *inferior*, and therefore you're being a racist"?

    Your smartism is showing again. Better work on getting more woke.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Yoohoo! Jeffie!

    Do you want to actually address the topic here, or just continue to share your feelings?

    This is kind of the crux of the *scientific* issue here. The topic of this thread. You got your panties in a bunch over race realism and ethnic differences.

    What *exactly* here are you calling racist? What precise empirical claim?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Jeffie still won't reply on topic. Sad.
    Prefers to spend his comments recounting his hallucinations of WrongFeelz in me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "And finally, everyone ought to be concerned"
    i.e.
    "It's all about the feelz"

    True. False. Spend some time discussing what is true and what is false. Like science is supposed to. Instead of telling everyone what they ought to feel.

    As this whole discussion clearly demonstrates, the Lefties have boatloads of anti science views, and worse, can't even discuss their own false scientific claims with anything but pants shitting hysteria.

    QED

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "And finally, everyone ought to be concerned"
    i.e.
    "It's all about the feelz"

    So we should completely ignore the long history of racially-motivated science and the horrors that have resulted?

    If I were to propose doing an experiment to study, say, whether communism can actually work, you would throw a fit. "Communism leads to misery and death", you would rightly argue. Such an experiment would be highly ethically questionable. If I were to propose doing genetic experiments on human babies, lots of people would have big issues with that, and rightly so. Science does not exist in a vacuum. Scientists have a duty to act ethically and responsibly. It is not just "feelz" to demand that scientists act with a sense of ethics, and it is not just "feelz" to demand that scientific results be placed in their proper context with proper interpretation.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Communism is a political program of slavery and state terror by design, which fulfilled those designs in a mountain of corpses 100 million high. 100 million corpses not enough evidence for you?

    "The distribution of IQ differs by ethnicity" is a fact.
    "Races are real" is a fact.

    Political programs are different things than facts. This is why you don't conflate concepts.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So you're agreeing with me. Scientists have a duty to act ethically and responsibly. They should also not ignore the mountain of corpses that occurred when certain individuals decided to act upon pseudo-scientific racialist theories of inferiority of certain races compared to others. Right?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And now our Trumpian troll decides to run away when confronted that he actually agreed with me when he was instead trying to argue against me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Did I fail to speak to you for 10 seconds jeffie?

    So needy.

    I'm against all totalitarianism, always have been, always will be. If you're only getting on board now, you're late to the party.

    But *my* opposition to totalitarianism does not require me to deny and evade the facts.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I was inattentive to Jeffie for 17 minutes.

    What a clown.

    I look forward to returning some time in the morning to a thousand tweets from Jeffie celebrating my "running away" from his next idiot tweet.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Dude, I'm not the Twitter addict that you are. I took a look at your Twitter feed. It is wall to wall MAGA/Trumpism. It's embarrassing.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Thanks for sharing your feelings about my twitter feed. It was a burning concern of mine. I'm sure of everyone else in the comments too.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why don't you regale us all with your intelligent commentary on what you think the ethical boundaries of scientific inquiry should be. This should be good.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So you agree that scientists have a duty to act ethically and responsibly. They should also not ignore the mountain of corpses that occurred when certain individuals decided to act upon pseudo-scientific racialist theories of inferiority of certain races compared to others. Right?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm against all totalitarianism, always have been, always will be.

    I don't believe you. Instead I think you are just opposed to "globalism" which you interpret as the only totalitarianism that matters. I doubt that you would much object to a totalitarian state that is run by a bunch of Trump clones.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I don't believe you."

    How nice for you. Nice for me too. It saves me the time of explaining my political views to you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're an authoritarian nationalist who fundamentally doesn't care about rights or liberties or even the Constitution. You just want to "deport the invaders" and "destroy the Left" and "fight the globalists". That's all. If it means shredding the Constitution to accomplish this, you're all in favor of that and you'll reason your way backwards to try to give a veneer of respectability to it. You're a statist thug who is no better than the purported enemies that you're fighting against.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I read minds poorly"

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Communism is a political program of slavery and state terror by design, which fulfilled those designs in a mountain of corpses 100 million high. 100 million corpses not enough evidence for you?

    Evidence that you're bat-shit crazy.

    How do your insane meanderings explain
    The Israeli Kibbutz
    The Onedans, Shakers and hundreds of other religious communes right here in America?
    Roanoke?
    Hippie communes.
    Hundreds of current businesses, which are communally owned, and with communal housing,

    Everything is a lot simpler for the uneducated, most of whom are alt-right.

  • Nardz||

    The only posts I've seen about the genetic inferiority (Tony) or low IQ of blacks (chemjeff) have come from ONLY those two.
    Clever trick of the progressive mind - state your own assumptions but attribute them to some strawman who you can then "criticize" for "believing" exactly what you yourselves presume.
    Prejudice is found in your mirror

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh do kindly fuck off. The people preaching the genetic inferiority of blacks are the alt-right crowd, not me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You're a smartist and loathe the unintelligent.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're a pathetic troll whose only purpose here on these forums is to gaslight libertarians and pimp for Trump.

  • Nardz||

    "Clever trick of the progressive mind - state your own assumptions but attribute them to some strawman who you can then "criticize" for "believing" exactly what you yourselves presume."
    "Oh do kindly fuck off. The people preaching the genetic inferiority of blacks are the alt-right crowd, not me."

    Further illustrating the point

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, Nardz, you're just playing a game by constructing these non-falsifiable hypotheses. (Ironically, in a discussion about science!)

    "An evil person will claim that dragons don't exist!"

    And if a person claims dragons don't exist - proof that person is evil!
    And if a person claims dragons do exist - proof that person is stupid!

    Heads you win, tails I lose! That is the stupid little game that you play. My words stand for themselves. Nowhere have I uttered a racist statement at all on these forums.

    "Oh but that's just what progressives do, they're really racist but claim that they're not!"

    So if a person claims that he is not racist - proof that he's a progressive who's really a racist!
    And if a person claims that he is racist - proof that he is a racist!

    Either way, racist! So childish, so lame.

  • Nardz||

    No, jeff, you keep initiating racist claims and attributing them to others who you oppose.
    You make a claim and say that it strawman's claim, though strawman isn't here and nobody else had previously made that claim.
    The claim originated with YOU.

    Part of your problem, Jeff, is that you have the progressive disease of superimposing your imagination over reality and treating that perspective as real.
    See your constant use of hypotheticals, such as "if I were to say (x), you'd flip out".
    No, Jeff, even though you think it likely that saying (x) would provoke a certain reaction, the event DIDN'T actually happen - you merely predict it WOULD.
    You then treat this prediction as fact, which leads you to do things like originate racist claims without realizing that the source of those claims is yourself.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy, why Fido you hate blacks so much?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Who the hell is Fido? Your dog? Why is your dog racist?

  • buybuydandavis||

    I hear pugs are Nazis.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    But it's a long way to go from there, to a conclusion of "blacks are inferior to whites because IQ tests".

    Just like it's a long way to go from "There's some moderate warming of the Earth's surface over the past 160 years and there might be some component of that which is due to human activity."

    To:

    "OMG!!! We're all gonna die!! Quick, hand over massive amounts of money and control to an international consortium and stop using the single most important source of energy in the history of mankind, thus allowing upwards of 2 billion people to die from disease and starvation to achieve absolutely -ZERO- measurable impact on global climate!!"

    And yet...

  • buybuydandavis||

    "There's some moderate warming of the Earth's surface over the past 160 years ..."

    Since the end of the "Little Ice Age". If there hadn't been warming, they'd call it "The Current and Not So Little Ice Age".

    That warming gave us a warmer, wetter, greener, more productive planet.

  • Nardz||

    ^this

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh Little Jeffy, it is all about feelz for you, isn't it?

  • Mcgoo95||

    "So you're agreeing with me. Scientists have a duty to act ethically and responsibly. They should also not ignore the mountain of corpses that occurred when certain individuals decided to act upon pseudo-scientific racialist theories of inferiority of certain races compared to others. Right?"

    Boom. Should've dropped the mic at this point. 'Little Jeffy' rolled and smoked yo asses. That was entertaining.

  • Nardz||

    Only from the perspective of a progressive who thinks that ethics and responsibility are concepts that are both somehow immutable yet conforming to the (a) specific zeitgeist of modern times.
    Guess all that controversy about gene editing has nothing to do with differing opinions about ethics and responsibility. Nope, everyone agrees with an absolute standard here... right?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Look, you are all doing it wrong. Anyone who uses "science" and "believe" in the same sentence does not get it.

    Science is fundamentally a process of understanding that stands in opposition to belief. The fact that some people like to look to scientific wizards instead of theological ones does not change the fact that none of them have made rational, reasoned judgements--they just accepted what is to them some incomprehensible magic based on other emotional or philosophical urges.

    Oh, and NGT is a jerk.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    NDT

  • Marshal||

    The problem is that one half of the American political spectrum simply doesn't believe science it doesn't like.

    The problem is that one commenter is a complete fucking idiot.

  • NashTiger||

    You are correct.

    Fracking. Nuclear Power. GMO Foods (NDT was against). Sonograms. X and Y Chromosomes.

    The shit that you proggy idiots don't believe in boggles the mind

  • Azathoth!!||

    'Believing science' is faith, Tony.

    It's 'Sciencism', the faith of the ignorati.

    It's vestments are lab coats, it's dogma, the acts of 'science popularizers' and 'social media influencers'

    It's credo, "If the labcoats fit, we must submit.'

  • Nardz||

    Nice, Azahoth

  • Juice||

    Look, I grew up with Carl Sagan and I honestly don't even remember seeing or hearing him say anything political.

    Really? Maybe you just weren't paying attention. He was pretty damned politically active. And you can guess which way he leaned.

  • DiegoF||

    Whichever way was pro-weed, I would presume.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I do know which way he leaned, but whatever it was must have been a pretty light touch. I do know he was on board with the denuclearization stuff. And sure, I suspect we didn't hear as much from Sagan because there was no internet and all-encompassing, 24x7 mass media. The lack of which mercifully dampened the ongoing verbal political diarrhea we're treated to in current times.

  • Alcibiades||

    Beyond the denuclearization stuff he mostly kept the politics to a minimum.

    For Sagan it was about how a kid from Brooklyn, who couldn't even see the stars as a child because of light pollution, could grow up and understand how wonderful and strange and vast the cosmos is. How much we've learned about our place in the Universe and how much we've still to understand. Sagan was a born communicator relating the joys of scientific discovery to everyone.

    NDT is a smug little hack.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Tyson's version if Nova was widely criticized for misrepresenting science history, repeating urban myths about science and history and in the on line science community he is seen as a glory hunting hack. Him and Bill Nye and a whole lot of others. He doesn't popularize science, he pushes scientism. I bet you also think IFL is real science.

  • Tony||

    The show was criticized for not sucking Jesus's cock, and scientists can be jealous too.

  • BYODB||

    It was also criticized as being wrong, but you clearly can't see past dicks. Religious or otherwise.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Especially if those dicks belong to young teen boys. Tony is ever the chickenhawk.

  • soldiermedic76||

    No he was just plain wrong on a number of counts and not just in regards to religion but also evolutionary biology and a number of other topics.

  • Tony||

    Did he not mention the role Jesus played in evolutionary biology?

  • soldiermedic76||

    No, it has nothing to do with Jesus. Fuck, your level of intelligence is questionable at best. Do you actually believe your sophomoric defense of him, and your knee jerk anti-religious bigotry, is any less dogmatic than those whom you are attacking? Sorry, you are as fundamentalist as any southern Baptist. Your religion though is scientism (not science but the worship of what you mistakingly call science) and progressivism. You are as much of a zealot as those who you ridicule. The ironic thing is you just can't fucking understand because you are intellectual immature.

  • Tony||

    So list something he got wrong. I have no reason to believe he didn't get some detail wrong. I'm also pretty certain that you guys nitpick things like that an insidious part of an agenda to ignore vast fields of research that you don't like.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You realize I am an actual science professor and no I am not nitpicking to ignore research I don't like. Please tell me what science I don't like. Fuck that isn't how science works. It has nothing to do with personal choice.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You realize I am an actual science professor and no I am not nitpicking to ignore research I don't like. Please tell me what science I don't like. Fuck that isn't how science works. It has nothing to do with personal choice.
    For one thing he ridiculed the idea of adaptive evolution but the growing evidence for epigenetics demonstrates that adaptive evolution may play an important part in evolution.

  • soldiermedic76||

    For another he bought into thevs genetics debate. But traits aren't determined exclusively by either environment or genetics. Expressed traits in science are known as Phenotypes, which are always a combination of genetics and environmental factors.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Environment vs genetics debate.

  • Tony||

    "I take great joy in finding if I said something wrong, because then I've learned something."

    NDT

  • soldiermedic76||

    Your quote means nothing. All scientist should understand the importance of admitting there mistakes. However, base on his track record, he only ever admits he is wrong after he has no choice. He talks a good talk, but his actions tend to contradict his words.

  • Tony||

    I don't know much about his specific research or if he does much of it. I know him as a science popularizer like Dawkins, Hawking, and Nye (whose research I know more or less about depending on the guy). NDT mostly tells me stuff I already know, but on balance I'm glad there's a popular, charismatic figure on talk shows getting average people to think about the hows and whys of science. He probably gets things wrong fairly regularly, but he's not a snake-oil salesman like many supposed authorities on the political right I could name.

  • soldiermedic76||

    What you just described is the definition of Scientism as opposed to actual science. And I could name as many snake oil salesmen on the left, in regards to pushing pseuodscience (a good portion of environemtaliey fall into this category).

  • soldiermedic76||

    Especially when the left loves (like you just did above in regards to Lindzen) the precautionary principle. This is pure snake oil. There is nothing scientific about the precautionary principle.

  • Tony||

    No, that's about acting. We act on the science. We act on the science that seems most solid, and we determine that ideally when an overwhelming censuses (ooh dirty word!) of relevant experts settle on the meaning of the evidence.

    You making this more complicated than it already is serves only to muddy waters, which is your agenda, and it's evil.

  • DenverJ||

    Replying here because it's the end of the sub thread: during the middle ages, the church did roughly 90% of all scientific research. The Vatican still funds huge amounts of research that directly contradicts church teachings, or at least what you think the church teaches.
    Newsflash, Tony, the Baptist and evangelical churches are completely at odds with the Vatican on many things, and the Vatican hasn't not believed in evolution for some time now.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Toby,
    Consensus isn't scientific at all. Stop trying to make it out like it is. I am not muddying the waters. I am pointing out scientific principles.
    How can you act on science when you don't even understand what is science? You worship the idea of science without any understanding of what it actually is. And you only tend to quote "science" that supports your underlying bias. Here is a clue: If you it follow science that reinforces your bias and dismiss anything that runs counter to it, then you don't understand science. Scientist are professional skeptics, we don't ever believe a debate is over and consensus means squat. It doesn't mean anything. Consensus is not science. If you are acting based upon consensus then you are not acting based upon science. Period, full stop. No ifs, and, or buts about it. And experts is also not a very scientific concept. That is an appeal to authority style concept. That also is not how science works. Your very rebuttal demonstrates how little you know about science. You keep talking about my agenda, yet I haven't listed or mentioned any agenda. You are letting your own bias dictate your responses and are arguing against a straw man. This is the ultimate in tribalism and partisanship. This is a religion for you, it is scientism as I have stated.

  • Hop_David||

    Tony writes "He probably gets things wrong fairly regularly,"

    Well you got one thing right. Google fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson. My list of Tyson fuck ups should be the top hit.

    "but he's not a snake-oil salesman"

    He'll spout B.S. to please his crowd. Invents histories to support his political talking points. Like his false account of Bush's 9-11 speech. Or his cautionary tales against religion are based on fictions.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Hint, Nye doesn't do any research. He has a degree in engineering, he isn't a scientist and he hasn't even worked as an engineer.

  • Hop_David||

    He didn't seem very joyful when Sean Davis ripped him a new one. Google: Tyson Bush Star Names. Jonathan Adler of the Washington Post wrote several good columns on that fiasco.

  • MasterThief||

    I was raised southern baptist. My experience wasn't nearly the sterotypical fire and brimstone, young earth bs that are attributed to them. I still find that much of anti-Christian rhetoric involves assertions of beliefs held by nobody I'd ever encountered.
    Strangely enough, since I abandoned the faith most Christians will debate theology with me and consider points I've made even if it inevitably comes to an agreement to disagree. The conversations with people who hold political beliefs and "scientism" as their placeholder for religion are much less open-minded.
    The typical left-wing "science believer" doesn't have much of a concept of the things they discuss but will repeat their appeal to authority lines ad nauseam

  • CDRSchafer||

    Vast majority of progressive experience with religion is watching movies and TV shows, just like their experience with most of real life.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Damn you are one retarded idiotic mofo.

  • Alcibiades||

    He doesn't popularize science, he pushes scientism.

    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

    Nailed it

    Amongst real scientists NDT and BNTSG are not held in high esteem, or any esteem at all really.

    Saw BNTSG once on CNN with a real atmospherice physicist talking about global warming. After BNTSG gave his spiel, the scientist tore into and dismantled everything he'd just said.

  • BYODB||

    Let me guess, the real scientist was never invited back.

  • Alcibiades||

    Probably not.
    Here it is.
    Its clear BNTSG hadn't a fucking clue about the basic science:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nh-tXGu-sM

  • soldiermedic76||

    This is what many people don't understand, scientist are like any field, we tend to be well versed in our own fields but in other fields have little more knowledge then the average layman. I say little more because often our fields do require us to study related fields beyond what most people do. I could lecture extensively on the difference and similarities between the physiology of digestive tract of mammals, how herbivores cope with cellulose, the symbiotic relationship of rumen microbes and the microbiology of the rumen, however, I am ill prepared to lecture on string theory.

  • Alcibiades||

    "...the symbiotic relationship of rumen microbes and the microbiology of the rumen."

    Then you know what methanogens are, they were the topic of my doctoral thesis.

    You a microbiologist?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Animal Scientist, runinant nutritionist.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Ruminant nutritionist.

  • Tony||

    Lindzen is one of those guys about whom deniers say, "Consensus is not science! But this one guy IS science!"

  • soldiermedic76||

    Science isn't about consensus it is about attempting to explain natural phenomana via inference based upon testing and observation. It requires measurements, and repeatability. If we based science on consensus we will still be treating communicable diseases by attemoting to reduce myasma. Pasteur and Lister were both single scientist who went against consensus (guess who was right?).

  • Tony||

    Thus all scientists who go against the consensus are likely to be right?

    That guy is an outlier. He gets booked on TV shows because he's an outlier.

    The bigger problem than confirmation bias in cherry picking experts to believe is the fact that this particular subject comes with a huge risk to the human species, so there's little reason to throw out precaution and put faith in the optimists.

  • soldiermedic76||

    No, fuck nice straw man you created. You hear that sound, it is the point going over your head. My point was that science isn't about consensus. Science isn't settled and we don't prove anything in science (we aren't mathematicians).

  • Tony||

    I really don't need a 5th grade lecture on what science is. Seriously. Your tired platitudes are making me think you're not getting the point.

    But science is, to some degree, about consensus. We eventually act on science. We don't pick a random researcher out of the pack and hope they got it right. When 95% of the relevant experts make some claim about the world, your money is better bet on them than the 5%, isn't it? Maybe to all of our relief someone from the 5% will come along and upend the entire field of climate science and prove that energy is free and the world heals itself magically. Wouldn't that be nice. But betting on that is both bad science consumption blows parsimony and the precautionary principle into smithereens.

  • Pepys the Cat||

    "I really don't need a 5th grade lecture on what science is. "

    Of course you don't need a lecture beyond your ability, you wouldn't understand it.

  • soldiermedic76||

    No we don't base it at all upon consensus. We base it upon what testing and modelling and observation supports. If 95% of scientist support one theory, but new data supports the 5% then the 5% are correct. It is never a popularity contest.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If 95% of scientist support one theory, but new data supports the 5% then the 5% are correct. It is never a popularity contest.

    I think you are mistaking "science", with "truth" or "reality.

    Objective truth is, of course, not a popularity contest. But the way that human beings practice science *is*, to a large degree, built on consensus. For the longest time it was believed that heat was a fluid (caloric) and that water was a pure element. All scientists at the time would agree on this, because that was the state of scientific discovery at the time. But those beliefs don't correspond to reality. Furthermore, if 97% (or whatever) of climate scientists believe some theory about how the climate operates, it may or may not correspond to reality, but it does represent the state of scientific knowledge at the given moment.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Once again you aren't talking about science. Consensus only means something to people who don't understand science. Scientist also don't believe a theory we accept that it is more plausible then not if the evidence supports it, however, science is about always trying to refine our understanding. If new evidencd becomes available, or a new model better explains what we are studying, then the best course it to reassess the theory. It doesn't require a consensus at any point. What you are mistaking for consensus is actually repeatability, however, these are two entirely different concepts.
    For an example in modern science, the idea of LaMarck and evolution through adaption have been rejected by the majority of biologist in favor of Darwin's descent through modification model. However, Darwin saw this as a slow steady process and uninfluenced, other than through natural selection, by the environment. Recent advances in genetics have demonstrated that evolution may actually occur at a much quicker pace, at least occasionally, and the growing evidence of epi-genetics demonstrate that the Environmental has more direct impact on genetics then Darwin saw. This has caused some to re-examine LaMaeck and propose that he was not as mistaken as has been the consensus. In fact evolution the model that best fits evolution will probably incorporate both Darwin and LaMarck, with the added understanding that SNP can cause rapid evolutionary changes at times.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Tired platitudes: the basis of scientific principles are tired platitudes in your opinion. That is all we need to know. Once again proving you are into scientism not science.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony is a little weasel, isn't he?

  • soldiermedic76||

    And basically g decisions should be on what is most probable. Preparing for either outlier is just fucking stupid and unscientific. Fuck, your understanding of science is lower than my son, who is a high school freshman. Just stop before you embarrass yourself anymore with your Scientism.

  • Tony||

    Doing nothing in the face of climate change is to make the most radical decision possible.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Did I say doing nothing? What you are pushing is known as the precautionary principle, you are trying to use science to push for your desired policy.
    The best solution to climate change, using available technology, is nuclear. Do you support replacing fossil fuel with nuclear power?

  • Tony||

    Absolutely (as a part of a broad clean energy package), just don't tell me it's the small-government solution.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.3.18 @ 8:19PM|#
    "...just don't tell me it's the small-government solution."

    Only assholes like you keep it from being so.

  • Tony||

    And how does your weird little mind figure that?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Nuclear industry was growing, but the anti-nuclear progressives stimied it's growth with ruinous regulations (that did nothing to increase safety) purely for the purpose of stopping nuclear power by making it to expensive to compete.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It only nuclear if you discount nuclear accidents.

    You cant, so its solar.

    Solar on every house and business would produce a surplus energy supply for the USA. Less would produce and energy sustainable model that would avoid the ups and downs of fossil fuels markets.

  • soldiermedic76||

    What Nuclear a vidents? All three and Three mile islands wasn't truly an accident. The safety features worked exactly as designed. It was an emergency shutdown that acted exactly like it was supposed to. If the media had covered it correctly, it would be an example of how American Engineering and quality control actually make nuclear reactors safe. Instead it was utilized by Luddites to condemn nuclear power.
    Solar is not an answer for a good portion of the US at current technology and storage methods. There are still major hurdles to overcome before it can be implemented on a grand scale Nationwide. The largest is the ducktail problem and seasonal light distribution at northern lattitudes. Using LA or some other southerly location as a model is just not good science. Today is the first day in nearly a week that we have sunlight, and it wasn't until 10 am (sundown is 16:15 hrs). In the dead of winter we generally have less than 8 hours of daylight and temperatures routinely drop well below zero at night. Solar is simply not an option in the winter here. And winter is our highest energy needs.

  • Nardz||

    "The safety features worked exactly as designed. It was an emergency shutdown that acted exactly like it was supposed to. If the media had covered it correctly, it would be an example of how American Engineering and quality control actually make nuclear reactors safe."

    So, so much this.
    Exactly this

  • NashTiger||

    No one like you and everyone wishes you would go away

  • Juice||

    Tyson's version if Nova

    *Cosmos

  • soldiermedic76||

    Sorry, you are correct.

  • DiegoF||

    Was it? When? Didn't he just host the stepchild program Nova ScienceNOW? I have to say he made a less annoying host than his successor David Pogue. I am sure he is lovely IRL but I could not stand that fucker. I have seen children's show hosts on the Spanish station acting less goofy and infantile.

    I think I saw an episode of that show--I think it was that show--that was special guest hosted by Alan Alda. Solar power, I think it was. Now that is a pleasant fellow to be spending an hour with.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I meant Cosmo, I made a mistake and am not attempting to excuse my mistake.

  • DenverJ||

    That's the third apology I've seen; one more and your "reason commentator" license will be revoked.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I could be just like Jeff and Tony, and refuse to admit I made a mistake no matter how often it is pointed out to me. Continue to defend myself ad nauseum, despite being constantly corrected on my mistake. And claim tribalism is the cause of those correcting me, all the while being the most tribalist douche possible.

  • DenverJ||

    Nah. Ain't your style. You got class.

  • DenverJ||

    That's the third apology I've seen; one more and your "reason commentator" license will be revoked.

  • BigT||

    Cosmos

  • Juice||

    Why go after one of the few popularizers of science?

    Come on. He invites it with his smugness.

  • Hop_David||

    Aside from Tyson's bad math, bad science and bad history he's not so bad. In fact he's damn good at promoting Neil deGrasse Tyson
    http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.c.....tyson.html

  • soldiermedic76||

    All you need to know is for Tony, his acceptance of science is whatever the progressives label as science. And his knowledge is limited to what he reads on I Fucking Love Science and other pop-science websites.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Why go after one of the few popularizers of science? How is he so bad?

    DeGrasse Tyson popularizes scientism, not science.

  • Fancylad||

    Why go after one of the few popularizers of science?... him not sucking Republican tit ...How is he so bad? ...not even that political
    deGrasse Tyson isn't a science popularizer. He's an inept historical revisionist who spouts received wisdom and readily refuted platitudes. It's got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the fact that he peddles misinformation to the public rather than educating them.
    His "I Fucking Love Science" crowd have no accurate historical context and background to the the science they "fucking love" because of Tyson and his ilk.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "He's not even that political, assuming the crab up your ass is about him not sucking Republican tit."

    If he was 'sucking in the republican tit' I'm sure you would find him offensively political. As you are a massive hypocrite.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I wouldn't mind him presenting himself as a popularizer of science, but that's not what he does. He presents himself as a genuine scientific maven, and that he ain't.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Burn baby burn.

  • Ron||

    I don't care for NDT but nobody deserves the #metoo treatment

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Noooobody?

  • Ron||

    I have to say yes though Bill Clinton, Ted & John Kennedy are deserving but the #metoo movement is not about justice but now about signaling and using it as a tool against anyone who may have offended anyone at any time. it is now its own joke but better not joke about it or else.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Remember when screwing lots of women was cool?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    When did it stop being cool?

  • DiegoF||

    Like everything else: When Ellen started doing it.

  • DenverJ||

    I LOLed at the bar. Getting funny looks

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Now women screwing lots of men without facts is cool.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It's not a matter of dessert. Smug males team up with televangelists and papal podophiles* to send men with guns to force women into labor to prevent Catastrophic Global Race Suicide. So the gals fight back against unreasoning superstitious brutes with (possibly) lies of their own. Mystical conservatives send men with guns to stop me from betting my money that they will be targeted in retaliation for turning girls into collectivist chattel like their Saracen imitators. Real scientists in their dotage, like Crick, have been successfully character-assassinated by mystical bigots. But the shoe on the other foot suddenly pinches? Tyson can straddle the issue of whether women are individuals, and learn about expensive regrets. Why not? Is self-deception protected deceit?
    *Mystical fascists who impress children into jackbooted Hitlerjugend.

  • DenverJ||

    You do realize that you're nuts, right? Get help, friend.

  • Fancylad||

    I think he might be another OBL... or insane... or just your average prog...
    It's so hard to tell nowadays.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He's a viciously bigoted, baby murdering whack job. I can imagine him having written a three thousand page manifesto in the writing style showcased above, and using his own excrement in place of ink.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    He tried. Therapist told him he was beyond it and recommended megadoses of Trazadone daily. Hank forgets to take it, and so we get this delusional nonsense.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    In contrast to the accusations against Kavanaugh, which were consistently credible, these claims sound like a coordinated smear campaign. Although I opted not to major in science in college, I know NDT is considered to be among the greatest living scientists. That a man of color could ascend to the same heights as Einstein and Newton clearly angers white supremacists. I suspect this witch hunt is racially motivated.

    #ILoveScience
    #IBelieveNDT

  • soldiermedic76||

    I know this is parody but it is funny how many people actually do believe he is one of the greatest scientific minds around.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Given the state of science, he might well be...

  • Mcgoo95||

    Sadly, you are correct.

  • Ecoli||

    Maybe Hillary will nominate him to the supreme court in 2020?

  • Eddy||

    Don't just put him straight on the highest court - give him some time on the Federal Circuit Court for Space, so he'll get the needed judicial experience.

  • Eddy||

    What if we discovered that there's only 8 Circuits, and the 9th Circuit was put in by mistake?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There would be a short circuit?

  • buybuydandavis||

    You're really hitting on all cylinders these days.

    When are you going to have a twitter account?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Ok, that was a good one, OBL.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'll give that a B+. Throwing in 'credible' was definitely a deft touch.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "In contrast to the accusations against Kavanaugh, which were consistently credible,"

    That disqualifies you from any further comment here.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    OBL, what if all these accusations are made from women of color, one possibly being trans? Doesn't that automatically make him guilty?

  • Ecoli||

    Neil Grabass Tyson.

    That is all.

  • Juice||

    Thread's over. Time to pack it up.

  • buybuydandavis||

    +1

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    B+

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Feel da Ass Tyson

    Peel da Lass Tyson

  • Ecoli||

    Neil datAss Tyson

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A-

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You win!

  • BYODB||

    Remember when Robby said that kavanaughs accuser was credible based on nothing? Weird that he says something different today huh?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Who, whom?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    He's the most unprincipled, worthless piece of shit you'll ever come across.

  • Eddy||

    Withhold judgment?

    Then what will I do with all my "heavenly bodies" and "astronomical size" jokes?

  • Rich||

    "So this is sad, which, for me, defies explanation."

    What does that even mean?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    He thought his special attention (and secret handshake) could only bring joy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    One time we had this new receptionist. It was her first day. I saw this guy go up to her and say, "If you'd like to go to lunch, I'll find someone to cover the phones for you".

    "I really shouldn't ", she replied. "I'm married".

    She didn't realize it, but that guy was serving as the office manager for the day, and he had just come back from lunch with me through the back door. He wasn't asking out to lunch.

    He was telling her that if she wanted to go to lunch--by herself--he would find someone to cover the phones for her since, you know, she's the receptionist. Yeah, I suppose it's possible to sexually harass someone without even realizing it, but that acting office manager would have had a legitimate complaint if he'd been fired over such an incident.

  • DiegoF||

    Oh good lord. Someone has a mighty big ego!

  • Eddy||

    Maybe she was setting up the basis for a retaliation claim in case she got fired later?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Bitch, you without me is like Harold Melvin without the Blue Notes, you never goin' platnum."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "In any claim, evidence matters," wrote Tyson. "Evidence always matters."

    Not to be a dick, but to be a dick, I wonder if Tyson believed that three months ago.

  • Fancylad||

    Fuck off Hihn, you ban evading piece of shit sockpuppeter.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    #metoo has fucked everything up so badly, I wouldn't believe a victim of Friar Bellows.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I didn't realize you were talking about Trump until I got to paragraph 3.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one could ever love you. You have no value.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What would Jesus say?

    That Dumbfuck Hihnsano's senility grows worse by the day.

  • Fancylad||

    Fuck off Hihn, you ban evading piece of shit.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Hahaha

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "Has already added more new debt than ANY President in history .."

    You need to be more exact in your language.

    As Obozo added 10 Trillion of "new debt" in his 8 years Trump can't be said to have bested that (of course W added 4 T in his 8 years also beating Trump).

    Your claim as to the deficit is a little close (but you are obviously confused about the 2) but I would note also that there still is a war, the one in Afghanistan.

    That little "war" went on for 8 years under the Nobel PEACE prize winning Obozo.

    Now that is irony.

    Wrong, actually it was a farce.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Not his fault. Tyson's pants kept coming down because he tried holding them up with the Kuiper belt.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    NEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just for the record, I used to live next door to Ogre when I lived in Redondo.

    I'm just sayin'.

  • Nardz||

    Nota bene: Louis skolnick totally raped that cheerleader in the first movie.
    That he married her proved it to be a successful gamble, but quite a gamble it was.

  • Karl Hungus||

    People don't think affirmative consent be like it is. But it do.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Does he still have a show on PBS, and if so, for how long?

  • Marshal||

    Tyson may be the best possible target of Me Too from a due process perspective. Not only is he openly left wing his minority status assures he'll be treated at least reasonably fairly - then his treatment can be used as the model for future accusations.

    This may be his best and most important contribution to society.

  • The Last American Hero||

    It's likely nonsense, but remember, the witch hunt doesn't end until the wrong sorts of people are accused of witchcraft. If that smug sob has to take one for the team for the country to recover a respect for due process, so be it.

  • Brian||

    The cosmos is fulla ass.

  • DajjaI||

    Astrophysics grad school is extremely stressful. If she couldn't hack it, it would not be surprising if she made these allegations as an excuse to drop out. She later became an expert in astrology - which is of course anathema for scientists. She clearly has issues.

    Also if someone is making you uncomfortable, tell them so and leave. Don't take notes on what they did and be silent and hold it against them many years later. This helps no one, least of all yourself. If they really are your only access into the field then maybe you are not cut out for that kind of work.

  • ||

    Neil intellectually assaulted me with Rationalia.

  • ||

    Can I check for Uranus tattoo?

  • ||

    Neil be fucking up the prog narrative now.

    He's an articulate black astro-physicist. Teamed up with Bill Nye and Al Gore and the rest, they be unstoppable.

    Until #metoo came along and now Neil got to gaze upon the stars and wonder what he do now?

    What would Rationalia do?

  • DiegoF||

    Neil is actually half Puerto Rican, btw. I rarely remember this myself, because I'm not all that eager to claim him.

  • ||

    Didn't know that. His name doesn't suggest that.

  • Eddy||

    From Prof. Wik. E. Pedia:

    "Tyson was born in Manhattan as the second of three children, into a family living in the Bronx. His mother, Sunchita Maria Tyson (née Feliciano), was a gerontologist for the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and is of Puerto Rican descent. His African-American father, Cyril deGrasse Tyson (1927–2016), was a sociologist, human resource commissioner for New York City mayor John Lindsay, and the first Director of Harlem Youth Opportunities Unlimited. Tyson has two siblings: Stephen Joseph Tyson and Lynn Antipas Tyson. Tyson's middle name, deGrasse, is from the maiden name of his paternal grandmother, who was born as Altima de Grasse in the British West Indies island of Nevis."

  • ||

    I had assumed by his name he was Dutch Indies.

    I was sorta on cue!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill nye has zero scientific creditials evidently.

    His stuff is written by other people to sound good, like Big Bang Theory.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    He's an articulate black astro-physicist

    He isn't much of an astrophysicist, he mostly talks about crap he knows nothing about, and he loves big government.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Of course he loves big government. He loves handouts for his PBS show.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Remember Robby's coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings?

    (FYI, I think Kavanaugh is a neoconservative lackey who's terrible on Fourth Amendment issues and who should not be on the Supreme Court.)

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "(At least one of the allegations against Kavanaugh seems unlikely to be accurate, for instance.)"
    Really Robbie? Which one is it? Don't keep us guessing.

  • Longtobefree||

    Just pick one - - - - -

  • Eddy||

    *At least* one. He's covering his bases for once.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Pancakes house?

  • Incredulous||

    I already have enough information to call all 3 accusations bullshit.

  • Eddy||

    So, either the accusations or his career will collapse.

  • Michael Hihn's loves assplay||

    #MyAnusToo

  • NoVaNick||

    As someone who has actually practiced science (I won't call myself a scientist though because I haven't been in the lab for almost 10 years). There is a serious problem in public perception of science, because what gets promoted as such is actually scientism, which is picking and choosing data and hypotheses to support one's atheistic or misanthropic world view. This includes people like DeGrasse-Tyson, Bill Nye, Chris Mooney, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other dipshits who are giving science a bad name. And yes, a lot of them are probably sex abusers too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill maher has not scientific creditials and is an ignorant asshole.

    Same for Bill Nye.

    DeGrasee Tyson explain scientific discoveries in a laymans manner and is popular for doing so.

    You're still a scientist if your job used scientific method to make discoervies or to teach science, even it was years ago.

    Einstein never stopped being a physicist.

  • jdgalt1||

    The Kavanaugh fiasco shows quite well that there is an epidemic of false accusations of rape and other sexual misconduct. As a result, pretty much any accusation in that subject area should be disbelieved until proven. And "recovered memories" are phony science.

    Furthermore, the behavior in the original #MeToo "scandals" (involving the casting couch) is a great example of something that happens voluntarily, between consenting adults, and to which the law therefore has no business objecting.

    It's time to show all feminists the door.

  • NoVaNick||

    Back when Bill Clinton was POTUS, a lot of now #MeToo lefties were bragging about how they would gladly kneel and bob for Bill because he was keeping abortion legal

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties hate DeGrasee Tyson for some reason.

    It probably goes back to the fact that Lefties hate scientific method and someone successful at describing scientific achievement ratherthan using political "science".

  • Rational Exuberance||

    DeGrasse Tyson is a lefty; and his achievements as a scientist are pretty limited. He's mostly just a TV personality.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Youre probably right about the Lefty part and the TV personality part.

    I think his peer creditials are respectable.

    The Lefties really dont like him, so I think he might publicly not side with the narrative or something.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I think his peer creditials are respectable.

    He has nice, shiny degrees. Not much in the way of publications in the last 20 years.

    The Lefties really dont like him

    I find that hard to believe; any evidence of that?

  • John Galt is back.||

    LOL

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn hates scientific method. Thats for sure.

  • Dan S.||

    not all encounters are black and white.

    Even when the people involved are, respectively, black and white. Actually, I have no idea what race is accusers are. And when I first read Robby's closing line, I didn't think of it in racial terms at all. And I'm sure it wasn't meant that way. But when I scrolled back up to the top and saw his picture again after reading that line, it occurred to me that the fact such a line could be written without it being thought of in racial terms is actually a great mark of progress.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    deGrasse Tyson doesn't care about evidence in the pseudo-science he bloviates about; let's judge him the same way he judges others.

  • CGN||

    Rational Experience does not know the meaning of the word rational given HIS bloviating response. Go away, little one, you are trying to compete WAY above your ability.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Whether someone is a scientist is determined by their scientific contributions, and that is documented in their publication record. DeGrasse Tyson stopped doing science some time in the 1990's. Since then, he's been a TV personality.

  • XM||

    The evidence (or simply the lack of it) does not have to be considered in a court of public opinion or employment consideration. He can be fired from any institution that would rather not deal with the mob.

    That was the standard used by the left in the BK saga. They would parrot "it's a job application, not a trial" every time they were cornered by those who pointed out the total lack of evidence. As if the democrat base would remain silent if Walmart fired them anytime someone posted BS accusations online.

    Tyson was never charged with any crime, but that shouldn't matter to the resistance. If he really believes he's innocent, then he would agree to an investigation outside of relevant jurisdiction (and unencumbered by parameters), right? That's literally what oily democrats demanded out of BK - "Prove your innocence to us".

    There's nothing rational, scientific or fair about most of the #Metoo movement. That private businesses have leeway on personnel decisions doesn't change that fact. Tyson and other prominent members of the scientific community were in a unique position to stand up to the mob. They never did.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Sure, Tyson gets accused and suddenly evidence matters?

    Evidence didn't matter when it was Kavanaugh being accused, with less evidence (in fact, with evidence against the accuser).

  • Number 2||

    Unless there is more to the story than what we have been told, to call the second and third allegations against Tyson as a form of "sexual misconduct" is to engage in blatant hyperbole.

    Having said that though: if Tyson really did complement an employee on her appearance and invite her to his house for wine and cheese, or otherwise engage in any other interaction with her beyond what is minimally necessary for conducting work related business, then he is a fool who set himself up. Any male in a position of authority of any sort Who engages with female employees in this way is making himself a target, and should know better.

  • CGN||

    "Funny" how it seems only well known and influential men are the subject of me too! I doubt we'll ever see a guy who works cleaning sewers accused, and not because he couldn't do this, but because there is no money or fame in it, which is, I believe, what these women (in the main) are looking for. If someone did something illegal to a woman, rape, etc., her only obligation is to bring it to the police. It seems most of the women who claim to have been assaulted, etc, didn't see it as enough of a problem to report it to the police or other authorities (college higher ups, etc) at the time it happened, and if this is the case, too bad for them. Their lack of physical or other corroboration of a crime should be enough to dismiss their claims.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Absolutely true, but Jesus H. Christ this is rich. The very same asshole who in numerous pieces here at Reason all but proclaimed Brett Kavanaugh guilty and wanted him rejected for the Supreme Court on the basis of an unproven accusation wants to withhold judgement on Tyson.

    You really are a worthless, sorry ass piece of shit Soave, you punk. You wouldn't know what a genuinely held principle was if it knocked that hair off your head.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Using Soave's reasoning: "It's no punishment to fire deGrasse Tyson as director of the Hayden Planetarium and Chair of Astrophysics over these accusations; nobody has a right to those jobs, and he can always find another!"

  • ThomasD||

    Rico's 'reasoning' crossed the Rubicon long ago.

    Rubicon, of course, being Latin for 'total loss of credibility.'

  • Number 2||

    It does not matter if the allegations are true or not. Tyson's intemperate response to them shows that he does not have the appropriate demeanor to run a planetarium or to be a TV astrophysicist.

    / sarc

  • Lester224||

    This stuff is even more lame than the ass grabbing Al Franken was accused of (and sort of admitted).

  • CDRSchafer||

    This makes me glad I'm not famous. I had a lot of drunken hookups in the 80s and 90s.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    He is right "evidence matters".

    So he needs to offer some in support of his global warming claims.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    umm, "(At least one of the allegations against Kavanaugh seems unlikely to be accurate, for instance.)"

    No, NONE of the sexual allegations seem likely. Not one. There is not one shred of evidence supporting any of them.

    I don't care about Neil here but at least his accuser actually knew him, whereas Christine Ford couldn't even prove that.

  • ArielKC||

    The revolution, like Saturn, always ends up eating its own.

    There is nothing good about it, but in this case, let's hope that it creates enough evidence that said revolution has gone too far, and finally begins to at least slow it down.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Evidence does not matter.
    A single accusation should be more than sufficient to have Mr. Tyson, beaten, tortured, starved, and gang raped in prison for decades for his obvious sexual predatory actions.
    Indeed, it is long overdue to terminate the ancient, time-consuming and fascist method of collecting evidence against the accused.
    We should adopt the wise methods of Stalin and Hitler used when questioning and gathering confessions from anyone.
    Its time we bring back the rack, the whips, the dunking stools, the iron maidens, and pliers to find out what really happened.
    Otherwise, time will be wasted and the guilty will go unpunished for too long a time.
    So, let us join our progressive brethren and bring back the witch hunts to further show the world just how much our justice system has progressed.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The problem with these kinds of complaints is that they cheapen whatever validity there is to real complaints of sexual harassment and victimization that have gone unaddressed. I notice that Cory Haim has once again gone off the radar, for example. And I read recently that the woman who first promulgated the #MeToo symbol, a black woman (whose name, to my shame, I do not recall) in the Midwest (Detroit? Chicago?) is outraged that the movement has been coopted by high style Hollywood females while the real victims of sexual abuse remain victims of ongoing sexual and physical abuse in black communities. I believe her. And this kind of thing only makes her point in boldface letters.

  • ||

    Just curious, did "evidence matter", when Kavanaugh was accused? I know it did, my question, is did Tyson think it mattered then?

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    He sexually harassed me once. I saw an interview of him on YouTube, and he made a suggestive expression that made me feel uncomfortable.

  • ax a nigga||

    for me, sex is like pizza, i don't think about it until i'm not getting any.

  • zrrifle||

    I think we should have a recall on Tyson's chicken denial (as well as all his other delusional misquotes).

  • Azathoth!!||

    I am just amazed that with the Kavanaugh situation, Reason endlessly parroted the 'credible accusations' line of their masters--despite Kavanaugh and every 'witness' the supposed victim named saying that none of what she'd said had ever happened.

    But with Tyson, with him admitting that every single situation happened in some fashion AND being a creeper on at least one, these accusations aren't called 'credible' once.

    Way to showcase your biases.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Kavanaugh was a proven liar. Under oath.

  • Marshal||

    Kavanaugh was a proven liar. Under oath.

    This is false. Further you should consider what is wrong with your news sources that you consider something false to have been "proven".

    https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/
    in-defense-of-judge-brett-kavanaugh/

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's best not to talk to Michael--particularly when he thinks he's 'disguised' himself.

    Far better to just sit back and laugh at him.

  • vek||

    Keep eating your own lefties... Sooner or later you'll have thrown one too many of your own stooges under the bus, and the real anti leftist backlash will go full tilt.

  • Jayburd||

    I'd love ta kick ya some money, Reason, but ya keep writing about these "useful idiots". And I thought Rush Limbaugh was a rock thrower.

  • ||

    I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! "a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!". go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    www.Mesalary.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online