Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye Disses "Regular" Software Writers' Science Knowledge
conoviator writes Bill Nye, one of the foremost science educators in the United States states that only the upper crust members of American science and technology (with degrees from top tier schools) understand science, particularly climate change. He opines that "regular software writers" dwell in the realm of the semi-science-literate. Nye rates science education in the U.S. an F. ("But if it makes you feel any better, you can say a B-minus.")
Bill Nye, one of the foremost science educators in the United States...
I think that's overstating it a bit. I don't know what Nye's bona fides are (some: bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering in 1977), certainly he's a knowledgeable science guy who has done much to interest kids and young adults in science, and of course there is his Great Debate with the "Intelligent Design" idiots. But "one of the foremost science educators"? Hmmm.
states that only the upper crust members of American science and technology (with degrees from top tier schools) understand science, particularly climate change....
Well SNOOT SNOOT, my good mad! Not an MIT grad? Did'nt go to Stanford? Hit the bricks! You opinions, masters, PhD, or whatever? Not worth the paper your diploma was printed on.
Good grief.
Of course Nye is a Cornell University guy, so, you know, everyone not of the Ivy League is suspect. I wonder which secret society he is a member of...
Science in the US get's low grades? University in general in the US gets low grades. Why? It's not about education, it's all about money. And football, don't forget the football.
So let's just solve this by insulting everyone. Washington State University knows nothing about medical science. Oregon State University knows zilch about forestry (or is that not science?). There are many well known public and private universities that while not up to Bill Nye's Ivy Standard, do good and great science.
Nye is off the beam.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Go read any slashdot article on climate change and Bill Nye's claims become self-evident.
In the original comment, Bill Nye was clearly stereotyping and generalizing. In the statment "software writers" and "farmers" and "people" are all generalized into this large pool of scientifically illiterate people that Bill presumes are a part of the large group of deniers. Offensive, sure. But let's see this in the context it was spoken in.
He wasn't singling-out software writers (ie, programmers) in the interview. To summarize what he actually said:
"Scientists in America are really good, but average people need to understand science, too. Average people, including programmers."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Nye did not talk about the specific shortcomings of software writers, but of society in general.
[WP:] What grade does America deserve in science?
[BN:] Well, this is the world’s most technically advanced society, and we have people denying climate change. These guys are still in deep denial, and future generations, what few of them will be alive, are just going to go, “What were you freaking people doing? What was wrong with you?” So, in a sense, an F. But if it makes you feel any better, you can say a B-minus. We have this top tier [of scientists] in the U.S., the people who graduated from Stanford, from Berkeley, from MIT, Cornell. Those people are still exceptional and really good. But we have this enormous gap between that and just regular software writers and farmers and people that need to be scientifically literate.
He mentions "software writers and farmers and people" to mean "members of society". A regular garbage man is also one of the said "software writers and farmers and people".
Says the guy who doesn't even have a science degree. Just a masters in Engineering.
Hey "SCience GUy" I'll see your crappy Masters in Engineer and raise you a PhD in Mathematical Physics.
I would opine that anyone who refers to the field of software development as "software writing" hasn't had much to do with the development industry at any point in their life and wouldn't really know how science literate most developers are.
Wow, holy crap is this article being intentionally bad at characterizing what Nye said in the article. The "F" rating was for overall population in the USA (based on the high level of climate denial).
His comment about him writing that you need to be from a top-tier school is wrong, as well - he was taking about how we have top-tier scientists in the US (and gave a few schools as examples) and compared them not to non-ivy schools, but to farmers and CS majors who talk about climate change as if they're experts.
Read the linked article - Nye intimated nothing that the summary does.
Lots of climate change deniers, cornucopians and similar delusional folks in software development.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Michael Faraday, was from a top notch university . The climate has certainly changed these days !
Does this guy read Slashdot? How does he know that people who are good with software could have such poorly informed and ridiculous opinions on matters of scientific interest? Makes me want to give the guy a high five!
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Summary is misleading. Nye basically says US as a whole is failing when it comes to educating average people about science. He admits that, sure, we have top top-tier institutions and scientists, but we need to do a better job educating the average person.
Hardly the swipe aimed specifically at Slashdotters that TFS makes it out to be. Furthermore, if we use /. as a case study, given some of the gems I've seen here recently, I think "semi-science-literate" isn't a bad estimate of the average.
To claim as Bill Nye does that "skeptics of a science claim" are not scientists is absurd
Did he say that, or did he say that deniers are not scientists? There's a difference.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Science relies on informed skepticism, not just branding yourself a "skeptic" because you're a contrarian asshat.
Actually, it's just conoviator and timothy trolling now.
Look at how many people think they're scientifically literate because they think --
... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You don't have to talk to flat earthers and antivaxxers to see profound science illiteracy; usually, the people condemning the science illiteracy are just as wrong, but about different things.
I accept that I'm not as well versed in formal science as I'd like to be. I care about it a lot and think i's deeply interesting and I've read about it a lot but that's still no a formal education in science.
I think a lot of us are the same way if we just have CS degrees and I don't see what's so hard to admit about that.
Well, this is the world’s most technically advanced society, and we have people denying climate change. These guys are still in deep denial, and future generations, what few of them will be alive, are just going to go, “What were you freaking people doing? What was wrong with you?”
No. This is why Nye, and people like him, are not "the foremost science educators" anywhere. This is not science. Science is not about being correct, science is not about deferring to authorities; science is a process for understanding our world, for explaining and predicting. It's a philosophy, not a set of facts. People in the future will be saying “What were you freaking people doing? What was wrong with you?”, but they won't be saying it to climate change "deniers" or "sceptics" - they will be saying it to the "science educators" who thought levelling charges of heresy was a better course than providing a reasoned, evidence based argument.
You see if you truly believe in the scientific method, and the wider philosophy of rationality, you provide a reasoned, evidence based defence of your position and attack on your opponents position. You don't tell them that they're not qualified to speak because they don't have a PhD from Harvard, or because they disagree with the "consensus". Science does not rely on qualification or authority or consensus and the myth that it does is the biggest threat to scientific literacy today.
And show some f***ing consistency, please. If you're going to shout down "conservatives" for being unqualified to talk about climate change please shout down "liberals" and "greens" that talk about, and accept, climate change as being unqualified to talk about it too.
I don't think so. He's just a man who liked to draw attention to himself. Who makes this stuff up?
At this point, anyone who disagrees with him on pretty much anything is much more likely to be right, by Occam's Razor.
Ok "regular software programmers." Go actually read the article, and then come back and read the summary again.
Now, Nye was trying to say that our technical work force is not trained in enough science. Maybe that's right, and maybe it's wrong, that would be a better discussion for Slashdot. Nye (or the reporter) obviously did a bad job here. At the same getting offended at being called less scientifically literate than the top tier of scientists doesn't help either.
Hey Bill. Kindly go fuck yourself. Seriously. If you believe (and apparently you do), that only Ivy League universities can provide any education of merit, then you really are more of a mindless tool than I suspected. Oh and Software writers don't have a science education? Fuck you again Fucking Bill Nye! I took "environmental geography" in University. I took the exam paper to the Prof. to get marks because I didn't "memorize" the formula for footprint, I just derived it on the fucking spot, and my numbers were more accurate than the cooked solution, and so I got an X on the paper, and it quickly got changed to a check. I've seen how "Bright" some of them can be. I put you in that camp too Bill. Blanket, far reaching statements about entire groups of people will get your sorry miserable hoi polloi (that's great unwashed to you Bill) ass kicked to the curb. You obtuse fucktard.
What a coincidence, I always thought Bill Nye's knowledge of science was rather shallow. Apparently he thinks the same of me.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Except on people who are willing to listen to reason and accept evidence. Like for example, take the anti-vaccine crowd.
You show them studies that say that the risk of the vaccine is really tiny and there's no correlation of receiving vaccines with autism. They whip out Jenny McCarthy and other anecdotal evidence, and postulate vast conspiracies by Big Pharma to perpetuate the fantastically profitable vaccine industry even though vaccines are unbelievably dangerous. Fact is, Big Pharma makes its money on Viagra and pills for chronic diseases, not really on vaccines.
If someone wants to believe something, your reasoned arguments and evidence based defense of your facts will never persuade them otherwise. Instead, they just end up believing even harder in what you challenged them on.
--PeterM
As evidenced by Node.js and Scala.
Whoever wrote the lead-in either can't read, doesn't understand basic English, or is a semi-science-literate who's butthurt for being called out as one. Nye hit's it pretty much on the head in his assessment... we have some fantastic scientists in this country, but they are surrounded by a huge morass of people who are intentionally ignorant and outright hostile to anything remotely intellectual; we need more scientists in this country, and less stupid.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
That's how I always wanted to die!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
He argues about climate denial, and resorts to insults attempting to make the point. Antagonizing people is probably the worst method of teaching them. Sure, he was answering questions but they were _his_answers. I never thought of him as a smart guy, but a decent entertainer. Entertainers need to make noise every now and then to stay relevant in that business. I know this as Sophistry, not Science.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"The simpleton's theory is usually correct."
With all the information that has come out about fraudulent studies on the so called global warming
I assume you're talking about this.
and the 1800 scientist who signed a partition saying that it was a fraud
That "petition" was a hoax.
Bill Nye is an entertainer. Just because he used to play a character called "The Science Guy", that doesn't give him credibility on all matters pertaining to science. (yes I know he has an engineering degree-but that's a long time ago. He hasn't been paid as an engineer in decades) His opinion carries the same weight I would give to any entertainer's
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Honestly? I probably have a whole list of people who it would be interesting to introduce to your uncle, then.
I've almost lost count of the number of times I've watched someone with no real scientific background in the field make a blanket statement declaring anyone who doesn't believe in climate change/global warming is clearly an idiot.
The fact is, things are much different than that. Quite a few folks who are FAR from being idiots think it's fear-mongering, misplaced nonsense. (I'm certainly no climate expert myself, but I think I fall someplace on the spectrum far from "clueless idiot" -- and I've read enough compelling information from both sides of the argument to feel like the "best stance" to take is one of questioning everything. If we're talking about pretty painless changes we can do, such as substitution of one chemical for another in a product, to reduce the ozone layer depletion - great. Why not? But demanding people spend billions of dollars to try to "fix" the whole climate situation? That just seems like a REALLY tall order for something that reeks of special interest agendas, right now, especially when we don't even have a consensus on a solution that would definitely reverse the claimed problem and revert it to "normal" in a useful time-frame.
What stands out to me about your post and the grandparent post is how both of you malign someone with no evidence. I'm certainly not taking you seriously about speaking for "many people [in Seattle]" either.
Digital Citizen
Arrogant west coast yuppie assumes that since farmers are from flyover states, they must be stupid. However, one makes a living talking about science, and the other by applying a dozen fields of science. Seriously, let's list them: agronomy, biology, botany, climatology, meteorology, chemistry, economics, physical chemistry, medicine, and a bit of psychology. Sure, agronomy, the study of crop production and soil management is a large part chemistry, but they're also studying the biology of the small creatures and fungus in the soil. They understand, intimately, the difference between climatology and meteorology; one is a problem over several years, but a hail storm can destroy a year's work. Chemistry, well, in a dozen different ways. Economics is still the driving force in the commodities market, but zoology and veterinary medicine are important to all but the largest of farms. Physical chemistry? Well, yes, they're very concerned with some interesting properties like mass flow and drying grains, drying fields and the like. You can't let the silage get too dry before you bale it, not bale it wet. That, sounds to me like the product of a liberal education, not the bullshit pomposity that comes out of "liberal arts" colleges for the last 50 years.
I read the article in the link in this post and it seems to be a complete disconnect from the post. Did he even read it? I don't disagree with Nye at all and everyone needs to have some basic understanding of science or else everything the least bit technical in this world is just magic.
A decade or more ago I had a temp working for me who was a CS student at a nearby university. He was good at the routine stuff, but one question and his reason for it blew my mind. It had to do with how a change in our DNS server got to all the other DNS servers on the Internet in just a few hours. After some discussion on how this worked I realized that his primary misunderstanding was that he did not realize that the speed of light was a wee bit faster than the speed of sound.
if ( $var === TRUE )
{
; do something
}
elseif ( $var === FALSE )
{
; do something else
}
else
{
; this will never happen but let's code it anyway in case it does happen
}
You must not have been following the debate in the 80's when the evidence that was coming in that the ozone layer was in trouble and some scientists were saying we needed to phase out chlorofluorocarbons -- there was a great cry that the civilized world was going to end without air conditioning and we would all die sweaty and uncomfortable. Same thing happened in the early 70's when leaded gasoline was phased out -- we were going to have to abandon gasoline powered cars, it would be impossible to design a usable engine to run on low octane unleaded. Those examples are why I am skeptical when told how expensive it will be and that it will practically destroy civilization to phase into non-fossil energy.
... Science as pop stars do about geopolitics. It is always painful to listen to some pop star lecture people about the middle east or the economic policy of the Fed. It is no less annoying when a television entertainer tries to browbeat basically everyone by suggesting that he's in some elite cliche of thinkers... when really he was paid to put on funny outfits and act WAY too excited about pouring baking soda into vinegar.
Bill Nye is a poor man's Mr Wizard. Anyone remember Mr Wizard? Way better. And everyone notice how Mr Wizard has spent years acting like the smartest man in the universe long after he stopped even doing his show? Me neither. Get over yourself, Bill. You're not half as smart as you think you are and if the software engineers don't get it then you don't either.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
But demanding people spend billions of dollars to try to "fix" the whole climate situation?
That's one really unscientific part about how many people view Global Warming. It could very well be a true phenomenon. That doesn't mean we understand it well enough for a large central organization to command that we spend billions of dollars to 'fix' it. It very well could be that we should be scrambling to keep our tech base up to the task of dealing with consequences we can't prevent at this point. It could be that the 'fix' hasn't been discovered yet, and that hamstringing our economy will prevent us from ever figuring out what to do.
You must not have been following the debate in the 80's when the evidence that was coming in that the ozone layer was in trouble and some scientists were saying we needed to phase out chlorofluorocarbons
And we did, and there's actually been improvement. Of course, more of the world has to phase out CFCs, the whole world isn't on board yet. A notoriously difficult state to achieve.
here was a great cry that the civilized world was going to end without air conditioning and we would all die sweaty and uncomfortable.
What? No. No there wasn't. There was a great cry that if we didn't keep our ozone layer, we would be sorry. Then we phased out CFCs. Now only TX and AK (out of the USA, that is) are ozoneless.
Same thing happened in the early 70's when leaded gasoline was phased out -- we were going to have to abandon gasoline powered cars, it would be impossible to design a usable engine to run on low octane unleaded.
Well, they had a point in a way; modern small engines which are actually efficient and clean generally depend on premium fuel, since they are TGDIs.
Those examples are why I am skeptical when told how expensive it will be and that it will practically destroy civilization to phase into non-fossil energy.
Of course it will be horrendously expensive! A bunch of rich assholes will find a way to get richer in the process, at everyone else's expense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The abstract of the article you linked to ends with:
This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public's incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.
FFS, how you can you interpret that in any other way than the failure of science education? The paper says the failure is not because people know too little science but because they don't believe in science because they are surrounded by people who don't believe in science.
How on earth can you interpret the abstract of that paper to be a vindication of science education and a justification of your disparaging comments about Bill Nye? If nearly half the population disbelieves in science and doesn't use science to form opinions on matters of vital importance and public welfare then how is that not a failure of science education? Did you even bother to read all of the abstract?
To make a car analogy, it's like you are saying an advertising campaign for car was a rip roaring success because it created a lot of brand recognition. But sales were dismal because even though many people knew the brand, they had very negative associations with it.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
...coming from a guy who was worse in every way at science education than a guy with big hair and a partner in a rat suit.
Anyone who says you couldn't possibly understand is either selling something or trying to direct your attention away from something they don't want you to see, because you would understand quite well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
relies almost entirely on emotional response and belief
Funny you mention that, because it sounds a LOT like the reaction you get from the Warming Alarmists when you point out that the rates of warming are not nearly as high as they thought (and are not going anywhere at the moment) and that simply by observing what has happened when know the models of runaway warming are very wrong. That's not emotion, that is observation based on fact, but you point that out wand what you get back generally "relies almost entirely on emotional response and belief". Usually they will bring up "what about the future generations", etc. etc.
Global Warming Alarmism long ago passed into cult status based wholly on keeping people in line through fear. Or at least that's the attempt anyway, they tighter they squeeze the more free thinkers and rational scientists slip through their grasp...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Who is this "Bill New Years Eve" of whom we speak?
An astronomer might know a little about the optics inside his/her telescope, but the level of understanding that a physicist would have is simply not in scope.
Actually I would expect an astronomer to have a level of understanding of the optics in their telescope comparable to that of a physicist's understanding of their own experimental apparatus. If you don't understand the apparatus you use to collect the data then that data is useless because you won't know whether some interesting feature of the data is due to some new phenomena never before observed or because you forgot to plug in your GPS cable properly.
He argues about climate denial, and resorts to insults attempting to make the point. Antagonizing people is probably the worst method of teaching them.
Yes but he is at least honest about that: he is one of America's foremost science educators and he grades America's science education as an 'F' so exactly how good a teacher did you think he was going to be?
You!
Didn't he mean "Science Writers?" He was probably miss quoted.
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. - Adam Smith (1723-90)
News at 11.
The problem is:
a) there is no argument
b) there are therefor not two/both sides
Next thing you tell me that going faster than light is easy, and that there are two sides of the argument about it. ...
Or you tell me there is no absolute zero temperature
Or you tell me water is not H2O, there might be another 'thing'.
Sorry, if someone claims that AGW is not real, then he has no clue about science, end of story. And I don't care if he has a doctorate in Chemistry.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, it looks like the writing's on the wall...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
When people look toward him, it is about his assessment on science in the US, not about proper manner or how to handle day to day relationship. Anything beyond checking what he said is an ad hominem. He could be the greatest asshole of the world, but what we should judge is his claim and the merit thereof. Far too many people look at personality or behavior where it is not proper.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Didn't Feyman once say:
If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Someone asked him his opinion, and he gave it.
A fairly accurate opinion, in my opinion. CS people are better educated than the average person, but many of them are still surprisingly ignorant about scientific topics.. Many of them don't even understand how computers actually work.
And most other engineers (even EEs who write software) don't know how software works (I had an EE old timer challenging me that he could write a compiler by just using look up tables to replace high level syntax artifacts into machine instructions.) Same with Physics majors writing code in, say, Python or Fortran.
See what I just did there? Every motherfucker out there is blatantly (and sometimes inexcusably) ignorant of some other thing.
And what do we mean by "understanding". Most CS grads (myself included) do not understand how computers works down to the nitty gritty levels, where copper meets the solder, where the laws of physics dictate how transistors and shit like that do their magic.
Nor should we need to. That's what EEs and CEs are for. But we do know, in general, the architecture of things, digital logic, the basic composition of computer architecture and so on and so on. That there are CSs out there who do not know that is not an indictment of the general population.
The same applies to, say EE majors that write software in C/C++/MatLab/HDLs more often than designing stuff at the physical level. Most have no clue how a compiler works, nor how a OS works. Seriously, most might now about hardware level protection, but not many can explain how the OS mediates a user-level process' request to a kernel-level call.
And that person shouldn't know. That's what CS grads are for.
That is what specialization means. To make blatant generalizations about who knows what is just an exercise seeing who has the largest wiener. That is all.
You're paraphrasing Dijkstra, but missing his point. Astronomers, in general, know a heck of a lot about optics. His point wasn't to excuse ignorance of how computers work (he worked on the design of the STANTEC ZEBRA and wrote an incredibly scathing review of the IBM1620, for example, so clearly knew his way around the design process), it was to point out that this is a building block.
I'd consider any computer science curriculum that doesn't cover logic gates up to building adders, the basics of pipelining, the memory hierarchy and virtual memory translation at a minimum to have seriously skimped over computer architecture. The better ones will include design and simulation (on FPGA if budgets permit) of a simple pipelined processor.
I would challenge anyone to show me a CS degree that doesn't have any of what you mentioned. This meme/fad/bullshit has been running for a long time among hardware degrees, that we CS grads never see such things (and I love their faces when I show them otherwise.)
The thing is, and this is what I've personally observed, that CS detractors claim we do not know those things listed above because we do not know the basics of electrical engineering. For example, knowing the exact working of a capacitor by reciting the laws of physics (and interactions) that make its work possible. Or reciting what a Thevenin's equivalent is.
Of course we do not fucking know (nor should we need to). And then we spend most of our careers working at higher levels of abstractions, so we won't recite out of heads how to construct a digital adder with a carry bit, nor remember how we built a basic ALU in our undergrad studies 10, 15, 20+ years ago.
But that does not constitute any evidence that we never see anything regarding computer organization and architecture (a fundamental subject that all CS students must pass to graduate.) And making assumptions like that can only to "conclusions" that are not only stupid, but malevolent.
There is a degree of truth that many CS degrees have lowered the requirements and put too much emphasis on higher-level programming languages to the detriment of lower level ones. But that is not the state of the field in general, nor a characterization of all who work in the profession with that degree.
YMMV, but people who make that kind of ridiculous assumptions are just carrying a big chip on their shoulders and need to make shit out to feel good about their career choices. It is not just ignorance, but arrogance.
He opines that "regular software writers" dwell in the realm of the semi-science-literate.
Anyone who says 'regular software writers' doesn't know shit about the subject he/she opines about. Seriously, what is a 'software writer', and what does 'regular' mean in this context? Define 'regular'.
I've always liked the 'science guy', but seriously, his use of language to describe whatever the hell he tried to describe leaves a lot to be desired and betrays a certain level of ignorance on a science/educational topic. Considering that software development, engineering and IT are some of the most important fields in the modern industry, that is ignorance of science and knowledge applicable to the current times.
Not even Bill knows everything, and he, just like everyone else, should STFU every once in a while on subjects not too familiar with.
Everything is subjective and political now. People can't even agree on the facts, much less on the conclusions. And, it's all in a light of which political side people perceive you to be on, in terms of what actual truth is or isn't. There's really nothing like political debate or exchange of ideas anymore. It's just a race to see who can insult the other side first, then stick their fingers in their ears and go "nyah! nyah! nyah!" while Rome burns. And, it really has nothing to do with educational level or socioeconomic status. Some of the biggest cocks I've had the displeasure to talk to have held PhDs in respectable institutions and the subject of discussion was in no way related to their field of expertise.
regular software writers" dwell in the realm of the semi-science-literate.
Judging by some I know to reach an average of "semi-science-literate" isn't bad going
I seem to remember in the past slashdot had more level-headed responses than knee-jerk "how dare you" responses. Or maybe I am remembering things wrong. Or maybe I am on tumblr by mistake?
For a smart guy he really should realize that the best way to get people to change their opinions is not to constantly insult them. Every time I see him he seems to take the approach that he is smarter than you and you are an idiot if you don't agree.
Now Dean Kaman is a much better example of an education advocate for the purpose of education, not political agenda. And he's actually a really good guy.
Fantastic job at getting young minds interested in science by convincing them they need a degree from only a top-tier university.
Bill Nye is the Al Sharpton of science.
Television entertainers know about as much about.. ...Science as pop stars do about geopolitics.
The exception that proves the rule?
Those who did specialize in computer science early on, after high school let's say, tend to not understand physics / chemistry / biology / etc. as well, and it shows.
That doesn't mean they are anti-science / anti-global-warming or anything like that, just that the rest depends more on ambiant politic than critical use of scientific knowledge when shown scientific studies...
Since Nye is in effect saying we're mostly a bunch of barely-literate, benighted voodoo practitioners in terms of science, I wonder where he'd come down on having a poll test for scientific literacy? Or maybe just eliminate voting altogether and adopt rule by technocracy.
Well, you made a large jump: that it's not worth spending billions of dollars even if there is no problem. There are people who suggest just that as an economic stimulus. But heck, people certainly disagree about economics.
Which is kinda meaningless. You're trying to say you're a skeptic. But anyone can say "I need more info to make a decision" The question is, what decision do you make today.
If you really question everything, if you really are undecided, a few billion at the government level to prevent an ELE seems like a no brainer.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
I've seen some of his presentations. They're a bit more high brow then anything Bill Nye ever put together.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I see you posted anonymous. Nice.... so you can't even sign your name to your opinion on this topic?
The "flat earth" debate has long ceased to be a debate because it's essentially PROVEN at this point that the planet is, indeed, a sphere. (The only people still denying it are a very SMALL portion of the population who may well do so just to be contrary, vs. having a true belief in it.)
I'm not whining and fussing about a few dollars coming from my pocket, at all. I *am*, however, saying, there's a LOT of B.S. going around, especially in areas like "alternative energy solutions" right now.
I actually HAVE a PV solar system I purchased for our house, outright -- and that cost me more than "a few dollars". Even so, I'd happily tell anyone who asks how much total B.S. and nonsense is promised by the "Eco Green, pro solar" crowd and adjust their expectations before they commit to a solar loan or purchase.
It's *only* via artificially manufactured govt. subsidies that this stuff makes good financial sense for most customers. It's NOT cost effective on its own, especially when you consider the costs they don't like to talk about -- such as labor to disassemble a whole solar system from your roof, in order to replace roofing shingles that are at the end of their useful life, or the cost to replace a dying inverter outside of the warranty period (typically less than HALF the warranty length offered on your panels themselves).
A serious change would involve building new, safer nuclear power plants and using those to generate all of our energy needs where options like hydroelectric weren't viable options. Guess what though? That's not really profitable for the special interests getting big payouts from technologies like solar right now, so that's not up for so much real discussion.....
Bill Nye is a poor man's Mr Wizard.
No he's not! He's a poor man's Professor Proton!
Christ almighty! Get your facts straight, Karmashack!
That is all.
I understand that my profession isn't the pinnacle of human knowledge, and there is a world outside of my text editor. One can be very successful in this industry without having a scientific background or scientific understanding. But there are a few sectors of the industry where the scientific method is a fundamental part of the job. While he dismissed a large group of people in a single broad statement, he's still mostly right.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
After getting my BSEE I begain my career designing integrated circuits, I soon started writing software to aid me in design and then migrated into the in-house design automation software group, working on projects such as gate-level simulations and circuit synthesis. I tried to get into the computer science program for my masters in the BIG local university. I was told flat out to forget it as EEs didn't have the necessary background to get into the program. I then went to another school where I completed masters in Biomedical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Science. It's let me work productively with Physicists, Mathemeticians, Engineers, and Computer Scientists. There is room for all to coexist and learn from each other, but experience has made me skeptical of pretty much anything my co-worker's say until I do the research myself. That skepticism has served me well throughout my career.
I think that Bill's generalization should be taken with a grain of salt until actual data supports his suppositions.
an engineering/science degree + computer science degree
I used to have a lot of respect for Bill, but the things I've been reading about him over the last few years make me thing that he might have onset something (Alzheimer?). How old is he? It feel like this is a kind of common thing. A person that I respected for many years gets older, starts saying crazy things, and loses all credibility. That unfortunately casts a shadow over all the good things they did before boarding the loony train.
That's what I call some Nye sass. I love me some Nye sass.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
He needs to have his colon examined. I think they may find a large insect lodged in there.
Proverbs 21:19
Bill Nye saying if common "regular" programmers are like farmers when it comes to "regular" science.
Farmers actually know quite a bit more about chemistry and biology than your average programmer. They might know more than Bill Nye, but he would never admit it.
Sun's energy physics show that humanity is still thousands of years from ability to do any impact on the Earth energy balance at all.
The Sun's energy vs human capabilities
Follow the money! The biggest hedge fund made 40 billions in 2013 from green tax money and carbon trading, fear-mongered out of naive US and European tax-payers. Guess who is sponsoring Greenpeace, IPC and other puppets of those few multi- billionaires?
Dear Mr. Bill Nye,
I will suspend my judgement of your statements until Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson can have his say on the subject.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I liken it to the Y2K issue. For years, experts were saying "hey, get ready, all our dates are going to be foobar". I remember seeing the warnings somewhere around '90-'92. And started coding for 4-digit years.
Anyways, it was all ignored or given lip-service.
Finally, in '98 people started taking real notice. In '99 we had a consultant & vendor free-for-all. Even applications that had nothing to do with the date had to be upgraded to "Y2K Compliant versions".
So, how is it similar to AGW? Well, the time scales are different: I started hearing interest in CO2 and warming sometime in the late 80's, right after we quit worrying about another Ice Age around the corner. But the pendulum swing was just as pronounced: comments and warnings for years, then all of a sudden, everybody (hey we can make money from this) jumps on the bandwagon and it's another free-for-all.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
in a non ivy-league school... Yeah, that sounds about right. Not sure that ivy-league CS majors would do any better because CS isn't taught with since science but logic and algorithms. That's not to say my classmates are apt code writes (most of them are not), but we definitely are not taught physical, chemical or other what's traditionally known as sciences. Really though, if commenters really want to be pick apart statements like that, they'd ignore the speaker's background and see if the statement itself holds true based on facts alone.
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
The subject of this comment sums it up. He's trying to tick people off so he can be left alone. Either that or he's secretly a major douche bag.