BIGTREE / TYSON INTERVIEW GOES MAINSTREAM
Comments
A week after the viral interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson, Neil made waves on primetime for the statements the celebrated astrophysicist made on The Highwire regarding his comments on ‘consensus.’
Explore
Thank you. I think a 5 hour rebuttal could be produced reacting to the interview!
Great rant!!!! Tyson is a clown. His ego is too big to see the real picture. My vax injured, brain damaged MMR that will wear a diaper for life, be tube fed, is NOT CLICK BAIT! Where is pharma to help my daughter financially! She lives in poverty as she cannot work, he requires 24/7 care!!! – Grammy
The “Consensus” that was followed and pushed on the public followed the Agenda, the Official Narrative, which was based on many lies.
My grandson was brain and organ damaged after the MMR shot at 18 months. He stopped making eye contact, talking and walking. He went into a coma. Today, 9 years later, he has behavioral issues, talks very little, wears a diaper and is tube fed. My grandson is not “CLICK BAIT”, he is one of the many damaged by these biological weapons filled with toxins, metals and poisons!! I agree, Tyson’s ego follows the fake official narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective”, which they are NOT!
Where’s the “majority rule” and “consensus” when it comes to all of the push for “trans” issues , common core, equity vs. equality, etc. Even as far as this entire push against so-called “fossil fuels”? They want to have it both ways. Whichever is more convenient for their goals at the moment.
This takedown is brilliant and so well deserved! Barely gave him an inch and his ego beautifully executed his oen hanging. Can we line up that other oaf, Sam Harris next? Another cringe worthy intellectual that desperately needs some help with his self importance.
I actually don’t think it’s right or good to call this man out in his ego. He’s just blinded by his beliefs in consensus, like everyone else is blinded by a belief in something else. He came on the show, atleast. He knows he’s not an expert, and he believes those who are experts have answers to Del’s arguments. But there’s a reason the experts won’t debate him. They know the cards are in Del’s favor. Neil did not know that. He assumed it was about explaining the scientific method and open mindedness to Del that would clear up any confusion. Little did he know his God named Consensus was not as flawless as he thought.
Clearly he is spaced out.
It seems to me, the consensus means, in this context an attempt to normalise the agenda.
He buys into the narrative. For some reason it suits him.
It’s a shame that someone like him who studies the vast universe is confined in a limited perspective (short sight).
Tyson’s insistence on believing the “consensus” is what you’ve heard for years from climate warmists. They live for “consensus.”
His example of “I can find you an astrophysicist who thinks we’ve been visited by aliens” doesn’t disprove the fact that one scientist can, and has proved the “consensus” wrong. This has happened many times. They’ve done it with evidence, just like other scientists that have changed what we think is real. The number actually doesn’t matter. It’s a matter of whether they have the goods.
What’s rather shameful about what Tyson said re. “the individual scientist doesn’t matter” is that his mentor, Carl Sagan, said the opposite. He said over 40 years ago that contrarians must be heard. They must be allowed to present their hypothesis and evidence, and then open their work to critical review, and if it can’t stand up to attempts to repeat their observations or experiments, only then are their ideas pushed to the side, and disregarded. It is maddening to keep seeing supposed scientists not get this. What the hell do they think they’re doing??
Love what you said about democracy vs. republic! You are on point!
“There’s no money to invest in challenging studies.”
I’ve heard of this for years. Where the money has been going is toward “projects” in science, which only make safe, small, incremental discoveries. This suggests, as well, finding new knowledge in the same space that has already been trod. A phrase for it is “Looking for car keys under the street light.” It not only prevents researchers from finding problems, it also prevents them from making big, positive discoveries that can improve our lives dramatically.
The story I’ve heard from scientists is that funders of science are risk-averse. They don’t want to plunk their money into major studies into areas that are not well-trod, because the research may end up in a dead end. That not only means, in the short term, that there’s no ROI, it’s also embarrassing. Often, dead ends get publicity, and people laugh at them, “Look at the fool who spent millions searching for angels on the head of a pin, and got nowhere.”
These days, as we’ve seen, it could also get them attacked, if their research reveals that the consensus is wrong.
Dr. Patrick Michaels from 2014, “Is Science Trustworthy?” He had some insightful things to say on the intersection of science and government power, and what that’s meant for science lately:
https://youtu.be/WpNzwzwm-xU
“The free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. … The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
— Pres. Eisenhower’s farewell address, Jan. 17, 1961
Hmm… Ringing a bell?…