He is focused on telling the general public what the scientific community thinks about scientific topics. He also sometimes talks about the role of science and scientists in society at large, which I think is pretty much required for science popularizors.

Because it might improve Ipads.

Wow... you really know those middle class single mother high school graduates from Nebraska...

He meant:

As yet, there are no known immediate technological benefits of finding the Higgs particle. However, observers in both media and science point out that when fundamental discoveries are made about our world, their practical uses can take decades to emerge, but are often world-changing when they do.[41][42][43] A common pattern for fundamental discoveries is for practical applications to follow later, once the discovery has been explored further, at which point they become the basis for social change and new technologies.

For example, in the first half of the 20th century it was not expected that quantum mechanics would make possible transistors and microchips, mobile phones and computers, lasers and M.R.I. scanners.[44] Radio waves were described by their co-discoverer in 1888 as "an interesting laboratory experiment" with "no useful purpose" whatsoever,[45] and are now used in innumerable ways (radar, weather prediction, medicine, television, wireless computing and emergency response), positrons are used in hospital tomography scans, and special and general relativity which explain black holes also enable satellite-based GPS and satellite navigation ("satnav").[44] Electric power generation and transmission, motors, and lighting all stemmed from previous theoretical work on electricity and magnetism; air conditioning and refrigeration resulted from thermodynamics. It is impossible to predict how seemingly esoteric knowledge may affect society in the future.[41][43]

Other observers highlight technological spin-offs from this and related particle physics activities, which have already brought major developments to society. For example, the World Wide Web as used today was created by physicists working in global collaborations on particle experiments at CERN to share their results, and the results of massive amounts of data produced by the Large Hadron Collider have already led to significant advances in distributed and cloud computing, now well established within mainstream services.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_b...orld.22_impact

Yes, but will the MC-SM-HSG in NE agree?

You are reading far too much into the conversation he had with a comedian.

You might be better off (if trying to be convincing) to actually quote more than a sentence out of context.

I would defend the Pope in a quite similar way.

You claimed that one of the most important books on the philosophy was a "long article."

I thought it more fair to point out what it was than to call you an undereducated nutjob who cares little for learning.

Lol. That is exactly Bacon's view.

You aren't even trying. I quoted three passages out of a work by Bacon and labeled one as "one that I like" as a plea that the rest of the work should be read. You picked the one that I was quite specific as pointing out as being quite pleasant for what reason?!?

I quoted Sir Francis Bacon.

Tyson directly stated that Bruno wasn't a scientist. Your "a ha!" moment would be wonderful if you had caught me actually admitting something that couldn't be gathered from actually watching the episode of Cosmos where Tyson said that Bruno wasn't a scientist quite directly using his actual voice out loud.

I'm really not sure how you think the other questions are relevant. I'm fairly sure that even you couldn't twist my words sufficiently to give even a slight indication that I was holding up Bruno as a martyr for science. He is a decent martyr for freedom of thought advocates, as we generally think that freedom of thought requires that if you have a thought and speak it out loud that no one burns you at the stake for it.

I agree with the first, and the second is just a footnote less complete than a the Wikipedia entry on dingleberries. I would have rather (assuming that emphasizing the conflict between dogma and science was an important topic for the show) them go with a better hero.

I am tempted to, and at times have, agreed with such a sentiment. It is a bit of a difficult topic. I'm often of the opinion that you shouldn't need to talk about Santa Clause at all for most kids to eventually figure out that he isn't in accordance with reality and therefore doesn't exist. I am even, on quite a few occasions, of the opinion that explaining to them why their belief in Santa Clause isn't in accordance with reality might be unhelpful. The problem is that "eventually" is starting to try my patience a bit and this opinion requires that the kids are at least of average intelligence and are taking whatever psychotropic meds they require and aren't being actively pressured into believing in Santa Clause.

My agenda doesn't include making science (with its inherent accuracy and precision) palatable to religious folk. That would be like me having an agenda of wanting flying pigs.

I assumed that this flying-pig/scientific-religious-person thing was something that you thought was an important goal. I like reasonable and attainable goals. Getting people who believe in specific magical creatures and specific creation myths to like science seems more fanciful than the actual beliefs in specific magical creatures and specific creation myths that the religious people hold.

Aaron, we may have different views on what "deep philosophical questions" are. Maybe you can give an example of one that you feel is important?

Also, it might be helpful if you could provide an example of a previously unknown "deep philosophical question", that is now known and helpful to us today.

DS made the point (and Bruze Z went through the trouble of eloquently explaining it), that science questions, which are currently unknown, often have a tremendous impact on people, whether or not the average person is interested or feels it's too complicated for them. A lot of people may not have cared about the space program in the 60's, but I think it gave us Teflon pans and other very useful stuff.

So I think you could make your point by showing a "deep philosophical question" that would have the same impact on the average person who is not a student of philosophy.

I view questions of personal philosophical perspectives as being the deep questions. Who am I? What is important? How do I know what is important? What is the right thing to do?

In the area of ethics, there are at least theoretical advances. For example, the perspective of the value of an adult human life has advanced to the point that in most countries we have legally established some form of minimal human personhood (at least for adults). This means that things like slavery are broadly rejected as ethical behavior (though this doesn't mean that it's not still happening).

I agree. But the potential upgrade to her iPad as a result of the discovery of the HIggs Boson is a rather unconvincing way to demonstrate importance. Was Tang an important consequence of the space program? If you could go back 20 years before the space race started, would convincing someone that a flavored powerdered drink was a reason to spend something like 10%* of the national GDP was an important decision seem like a doable task?

(* Number pulled out of nowhere)

Abstract possibility is a harder sell for people living their daily lives, which I assume was DS's expectation of the middle class single mother high school graduate living in Nebraska. But they understand things about human interaction because it happens all the time. They understand things like ethics, even if they don't call it that. They understand morality (even if there's disagreement on some details).

Sounds like Tyson isn't against that sort of thing at all.

"...Philosophy has other, it not that there can't be other philosophical subjects. There is religious philosophy, ethical philosophy, political philosophy. There is plenty of other stuff for philosophers to do."

Yes. And that was a technically incorrect phrasing. Admitting error isn't a hard thing to do when you know you're wrong. But I stand by my assessment. I have doubts that you've read it in its entirety, and I have doubts that you read the article from the roughly 15 page of four column yellow faded type article from 1878 edition of the Popular Science Monthly.

Horray for search functions, no?

Bacon's view is that quantum mechanics and the expanding universe render philosophy obsolete? Yes, Bacon grounded us in a lot of ideas that we use as part of the contemporary scientific endeavor. But that's not really the view Tyson is putting forth. His is more specifically grounded in how history has played out.

I'm just checking that you understand you're off topic. You seem rather incapable of staying on topic, and throwing pointless barbs and such for the sake of anti-religiosity. Maybe you have some personal demons that you're struggling against or something.

And for making it about a dozen or so statements into book 1, you should be proud, for this clearly demonstrates you understand Bacon's philosophy. <slow clap>

(Your other quote is certainly deeper into Book 1, which I openly grant. But I'm relatively confident that you don't understand it in context, mostly from your disposition. I'm pretty sure his concept of philosophy and theology are different from yours. I could be wrong, as you haven't elaborated explicitly on this.)

Anyway, I'm out of time for now.

And thus Aaron W. polemicizes against people who actively ignore the philosophical canon that he passively ignores. (Out of of Damon Linker's favorites---Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein---have you read even a single complete text, Aaron?)

In any case, that first article by Linker is easily the stupidest thing I have seen in the last five years, and just more evidence of the clear fact that there is nothing, nothing, inherently salutary about "the philosophical pursuit of self-knowledge." A work of philosophy is valuable exactly to the extent that the author is brilliant---or even transcendent. The author creates the value.

In science, on the other hand, people who are merely intelligent can still hope to add some real value (by discovering previously unknown facts about reality.) So a purely scientific focus is HUGELY preferable for 99.99% of the population. I assume this is roughly Tyson's point.

This is clearly a wrong and highly unscientific statement since there are plenty of religious folk who are scientists. Between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Laureates across all fields have identified Christianity as their religion of preference. You seem to have confused religious folk with ignorant religious folk; those who believe without examining evidence that the universe and man were created in a week. You seem to be unaware that the vast majority of theologians have rejected this, and that the Catholic church endorses the theory of evolution. There is no conflict between science and religious belief, and those who think there is understand neither. So it would seem that while you accuse others of wearing tinfoil hats, you are wearing quite a large one yourself. Perhaps another hat would be more appropriate. One which is tall and conical in shape.

And what does an iPad improve? Ultimately, one’s quality of life. Throughout history, at least some people have gained the same thing, an improved quality of life, by posing and attempting to answer the big questions. That “a middle class single mother high school graduate in Nebraska” does or does not get anything from dealing with the big questions is irrelevant. That Tyson doesn’t get anything from considering the big questions is irrelevant. That, essentially in the role of a teacher, he has no qualms in telling those of a formative age that they ought not pursue such endeavors, and then resort to intellectual intimidation to drive his point home, is just wrong.

I imagine Tyson has enough sense not to make that argument.

Novum Organum is a seminal work about what science is. It should be common knowledge.

The second was an amazing find. Of course I read it. I have a hard time believing that anyone wouldn't read it. Dude, it is from 1878! Actually, I don't think I could even relate to someone who didn't feel compelled to read it simply because of the age of it.

Empiricism and what questions ought be asked are in common. The findings we have made in physics and how we have made them vindicates Bacon. Would be quite strange if Tyson didn't mention the things that vindicated Bacon's view.

Throwing barbs at you is just good clean fun. I am absolutely pro-religion. So was Francis Bacon.

It only seems that I am going off topic because you don't have the requisite knowledge to make the connections.

Dude, Novum Organum is the stuff of basic education on the scientific method. You really aren't familiar with it?

iPads are mass produced. The Higgs allows mass production.

I'm not at all worried about making science palatable to religious scientific folk. That would be a strange problem to be worried about solving.

That is why I mentioned the specific creation myth thing. Bacon's God is quite compatible with science.

Perhaps something like this:

I made no claim that my list was exhaustive. These are the questions that I believe are relevant to the middle class single mother high school graduate from Nebraska.

But that's not the claim you're defending. The claim is that what Tyson said is exactly what Bacon said (specifically, that what Tyson said "is exactly Bacon's view."). This is not about things "vindicating" Bacon's view. It's about the argument being put forth.

One could argue that virtually any empirically derived conclusion vindicates Bacon.

I agree that throwing barbs is fun. And I don't mind taking them and giving them. But you also have to have better substance with them, lest you create a caricature of your argument.

I am interested in your pro-religion stance and reconciling it with the level of ignorance you expressed about it. Is the thought process similar to the inclusion of Bruno's mischaracterized life and thoughts for inclusion in a show that's supposed to promote science? (A story that is not grounded in fact but done to drive a particular narrative -- in this case, that you really aren't that ignorant and drowning in a sea of painfully misinformed bias?)

Those don't qualify (in terms of the discussion) as what Tyson was talking about when he said "deep" philosophical questions.

Your beliefs about what questions are important is not relevant to the thread. This is the denigrate Tyson thread. Tyson gave a (partial) list of things that it is proper for philosophers to do; what their place in the world is.

No, one couldn't. At least not in terms of this discussion about Tyson. Bacon didn't just lay out the basics of the scientific method. In Novum Organum, he makes very strongly worded statements* about the sort of philosophizing that Tyson mentioned as being unhelpful and slowing down (preventing) the progress of acquiring knowledge about the world.

Tyson mentions that philosophers haven't made any positive contributions ( except for when they have been scientists by another name) as vindication. One usually assumes that if something is helpful, you would be able to point to examples where it was helpful.

I did. One must learn to read between the barbs.

I've showed no ignorance about religion. I've been a bit rude toward a certain class of religious people. That is different.

My pro-religious stance is based on it (to various degrees depending on the religion) providing a sense of community; a set of rules to live by; a sense that justice will prevail. It providing some comfort for the poor and downtrodden and when faced with the prospect of death. It also provides a set of answers to questions that are far too easy to ruminate excessively over, such as "why are we here?" and "what is the purpose to life?"

*re-read the bit I posted from Bacon about theology while keeping in mind that Bacon was religious.

Can someone answer a quick question I have about what he said?

At the 2:00 mark, he describes how atoms are different than a bouncing rubber ball in that they never lose their energy due to perfect elasticity. This was after explaining that the jiggling atoms from hot coffee cause the atoms in the cup to jiggle and make the cup itself warmer. But wait a minute... Coffee does cool and so does the cup. Wouldn't this mean that they DO lose energy? I think he says this much later in the clip. So I didn't get the explanation of atoms never losing their energy.

Btw- I thought I saw this whole series, but never saw this part. His childlike curiosity of nature is contagious. I never get tired of listening to him talk about science.

The atoms of the cup (and the surface of the coffee) bounce against the air outside of cup, which warms up the air surrounding the cup. Also, some of the water molecules with extra wiggly-jiggliness evaporate. Still no heat energy lost. It just moves from one place to another.

Would it be too much to ask further explanation of this dissipating process? Obviously the jiggling atoms are not numerous enough to warm up all the air molecules of a room (or a planet). But are you saying that these jiggling atoms that were once heated up continue to retain their jiggliness eternally? If we could isolate an atom from Henry the VIII's cup of tea, would it still be jiggling with as much energy as when he drank it?

Could be the dumbest question ever asked, I know. But I have a hard time understanding the whole conservation of energy thing. If I understand things right, there is a finite amount of energy that stemmed from the big bang and while it can be transferred into matter and visa versa, it is never lost. Not sure if I'm right about that though.

It is TOTAL energy that is conserved, not that the energy of each atom never changes.

The atom in the hot coffee is super wiggly and the atom in the cold cup is not so wiggly. When the coffee atom bumps into the cup atom, it hands the cup atom a bit of its wiggliness. It gets less wiggly the same exact amount as the cup atom gets more wiggly. The total amount of wiggliness doesn't change.

Of course, the cup of hot coffee can't increase the temperature of the room very much. It has far fewer atoms than the room. It would be like me walking into a full auditorium with $100 and handing out my money to everyone. You wouldn't expect everyone to have $100 after I was done distributing it, would you?