Slashdot Mirror
How Did Bill Nye Become the Science Guy?
An anonymous reader writes "Whether he's debating creationists, taking selfies with President Obama, or 'Dancing with the Stars,' Bill Nye the Science Guy is no stranger to the spotlight. But what about the man behind the public persona? How did Bill Nye become the Science Guy?(video)
Bill Nye has made his debut on the PBS series, The Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers, to reveal the story of how he rose from being a young comedian from Seattle to becoming a science icon.
In his profile, Bill Nye talks about his early days impersonating Steve Martin, why bow-ties are important in the lab (and with the ladies), and how Carl Sagan's advice helped to shape his hit television show."
He was created by God just as you see him now.
Almost Live - a weekly half hour comedy skit show in Seattle in the 80s is what made Bill Nye.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
My favorite comedy from Bill Nye was Speeeeeeed Walker, a super hero that always adhered to the rules of the International Speed Walking Association: Heal Toe! Heal Toe!
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
You just described 2/3 of Slashdot.
Table-ized A.I.
Please, editors, for the love of science, do not allow bit.ly links in summaries.
http://bit.ly/1gkfa7z
is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KkKejZnazw
"Bill Nye: Change The World" by user "NOVA's Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers".
Most scientists told him not to debate the creationists as it only brings more attention to them. Well it really happened and now the people he debated received enough money and even MUNICIPAL BONDS to build a life sized Ark. Thanks Bill Nye.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How did he become "The Science Guy" Because nye rhymes with guy, and he probably has a penis.
Need I say more?
... captain obvious
... He's no scientist.
... Bill Nye the Attention Whore
... Mr. Bill Nye is NOT and has NOTHING to do with science
This out of 31 posts so far.
This on a guy who makes science fun for kids.
Beta might not be Slashdot's biggest problem,
but going the way of kuro5hin is.
I have always enjoyed Bill Nye. Watching him in his early days on his show and on a local Seattle show "Almost Live". He was witty and funny.
From Wiki: "He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where one of his professors was Carl Sagan) and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977. Nye occasionally returns to Cornell as a professor to guest lecture introductory level astronomy and human ecology classes."
I would think that is sufficient education to be "the Science Guy". Why do we need to tear him down?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
He's a science educator. Some science educators *are* bona fide scientists, like Carl Sagan; but science is not mysticism. String theory might be beyond most people, but there's a lot of basic stuff most people can explore and understand, and if you can do that you can explain it to others.
If you think about it, a background in comedy is a very good preparation for being an educator. First you have to get and hold their attention. Second, you have to make really, really sure they get your point. People don't laugh at jokes they don't understand -- at least not the kind of laughter they paid to come experience. So comedy is all about making sure people get the point and are entertained along the way.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Because bow-ties are cool.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
On the other hand that Ken Ham makes Australians look like idiots even if he has been infected by some sort of fringe American pentacostal rabies :(
An antidote to that is Dr Karl who's sort of our version of Bill Nye only from more of a medical background (http://www.drkarl.com).
How's this for funny?
Yes, it ridiculous - that was the entire point. It was a radio talkback thing that grew out of a question from a listener. Entertain people and make them think at the same time.
Massive cultural assumption or what. What about international science presenters like David Attenborough or Brian Cox
he's now more about harassing religious fundamentalists and flame baiting people in the climate change debate.
I have very little regard for any of the so called scientist media personalities that spend most of their time engaging in various topics that are unproductive and rarely about science.
Religious fundamentalists cannot be argued against with science. Its utterly pointless. Their interpretation of their religion means they will not agree. End of story.
Possibly they can be argued off of it on philosophical, ideological, or theological grounds. But science is utterly futile in dealing with this issue. Yet many do this, piss off the fundamentalists for no reason, accept the applause of some atheist supporters, and then take a victory lap like they accomplished something.
As to the climate debate, that isn't a scientific debate either at this point. Its a political, economic, and ideological debate. Science doesn't even really come into it.
You have one faction that says the solution to fixing the climate is to nationalize everything, give the government sweeping control over the economy, jack up taxes hugely, and grant lots of power to non-democratic international organizations.
So... spoiler alert... many people have a problem with that. If you removed all of that from the climate change rhetoric, most of the opposition would be gone tomorrow. Yet, it is pretended that the issue can be solved by explaining the science again. Waste of god damn time.
Bill Nye was fun once... when he explained little science experiments on tv. He was great. But he hasn't done that in a long time and frankly since he stopped doing that I fail to see why anyone should give a damn about him.
Now I'm about to get attacked by some people that think I'm supporting creationism or anti global warming science or both. Right off, anyone that makes that accusation after reading the above post is a fucking retard. But this site is full of them. So let me explain again, IT DOES NOT MATTER and THAT IS NOT MY POINT. My point is that indifferent to the science, science is often not a viable answer to various debates. In matters of belief, politics, or economics you can't just cite the science and expect everyone to fall into instant obedient lockstep with whatever you want. That's foolish.
If you ACTUALLY want to solve the creationism issue... you need to respect the religious rights of people that find evolution to be a threat to their theology. We have a freedom of worship in this country which means people can believe the universe came from a cooked potato if it makes them happy.
Yes... public schools and public money... well, that's a problem because the government isn't allowed to infringe on their beliefs. Which means you might need to give them money to run their own home schools or whatever. I know... you're not happy about that. But you'd only need to give them their share of the education money which after all came out of their own taxes. So they're hardly taking anything away from you.
That is how you coexist. You either are happy to grant that or you want to dominate people and force your own beliefs on people... yes, your beliefs are backed by science. Show me where in the constitution that matters. It doesn't. Being right doesn't mean you get to force people to agree with you. They're going to be contentious. Tolerate their differences and demand the same in return.
In regards to climate change... We really need to go over some solutions to the issue that don't instantly piss everyone off.
Obviously we need to reduce our usage of sequestered hydrocarbons. So... to that end, nuclear power really needs to be put back on the table. If only as a stop gap until energy storage systems become more practical.
Doubtless that makes some people unhappy... its called a compromise... you're not supposed to be happy. In addition to that, we should look at syngas/biogas to produce carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel. That will further reduce our dependence on sequester
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Really, news for nerds? I've never heard that name before in my life. And what is a "science guy" anyway? Sounds pretty stupid to me.
Anyway, got to go to work now - science calls.
Causility != Implication
1) Smoking causes lung cancer, but not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. If smoking would imply lung cancer every smoker would also be suffering from lung cancer. It is clear that religion does not imply a low IQ, because some really smart religious people do exist.
2) Lack of intelligence also does not imply believe in God, because there are stupid atheists as well.
3) There are many possible causes for both religion and low intelligence.
- If religion is one of the rare sources of hope in insecure situations, how would that make religions look bad? This would be like saying: Antibiotics are bad, they are consumed mostly by unhealthy people.
There can also be causality chains. E.g.:
- Higher Intelligence causes people to question the believes for neighbors.
- This makes it more likely to get a different set of believes than the neighbors.
- If the majority of the neighbors believes in god, mostly high IQ people will not share this believe.
If you look at Lynn and Nyborg's data you will notice that not that nations with the overall highest level of atheist have the highest average IQ, but instead the nations with around 10-20% atheists have the highest IQ.
Jan
I didn't see the whole debate, but the telling part to me was when both were asked what would change their minds. What would make Bill Nye believe in creationism and Ken Ham accept evolution?
Bill Nye said evidence. If a rabbit fossil was found in the same soil layer as a T-Rex fossil, it would seriously make him question his theories. He might not jump to creationism right away, but it would push him in that direction.
Ken Ham said nothing. To him, even if God himself came down and said "Hey Ken, I'm glad that you're a fan of the bible and all but evolution is true", Ken would still hold onto creationism and not accept evolution.
In other words, Bill Nye is keeping his mind open - albeit requiring some very exceptional proof for good reason - while Ken Ham's mind is extremely closed. Debating Ken wasn't to convince Ken Ham, though, but to convince others whose minds might not be so closed off. I just wish they could have done it without Ken Ham profiting financially from it.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
to Bill Nye.
Beakman's assistant was *way hotter* than any bunsen burner Nye had. . .
But if you believe random parts of the bible are just metaphorical, then why take any of it seriously?
Much of Sun Tzu's masterpiece is metaphorical, but is great philosophy when it comes to conflict - either in actual war or business. Likewise most of the I Ching is metaphorical - and is quite salient to daily life. Metaphors are great ways to communicate, and there is a lot of valuable underlying philosophical concepts contained in all 3 of those works (the bible, Sun Tzu's Art Of War, and the I Ching). Throwing away writings as nonsense (not to be taken seriously) because parts of it are metaphorical would really leave a person missing out on a lot of well-developed and carefully considered philosophy.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!