How Science in America is Changed over the Time (People Reviews)

  • We are living on a ball that is spinning at 1,000mph, and at the same time hurtling through space at 67,000 mph. Mars is spinning at 1,000mph and hurtling through space at 58,000mph and yet we sent a car sized robot and landed it perfectly on a specific target area smaller than a football field, to a planet that is 250 million miles away on a curved trajectory!! We have smart phones that can pinpoint your location anywhere on earth within a few feet and can pretty much access the entire history of literature and information ever written. Not to mention recorded in video, movies and tv. People walk without legs, we can transplant hearts from deceased people to living people, and a trillion other amazing accomplishments all because of science and everyone says “It’s amazing what we can do” …
  • But as soon as the science points to facts we don’t like, suddenly its “Science doesn’t always get it right”, and “these guys have a different agenda”
    And what do these deniers do? Do they do their own research? No, they just try to poke holes in the science that contradicts what they want to believe.

 

  • In the day and age when scientists are being funded by corporations to find the specific data they’re looking for, we have conflict of interest science. Tell me who funds your lab and we’ll be the judge if it remains credible. Science got bought out along with our politicians long ago.

 

  • More elitist garbage and propaganda. Keep your GMOs, take your vaccines, just remember, no matter how much any of you dislike it, your “rights” end where someone else’s begins. Our bodies, our choices. Science was perfectly settled so many times, cigarettes and cancer, DDT, and how many other things?!? Science is never settled. It is often, however, for sale.

 

  • Some also argue science is responsible for the change in stances you mentioned above (such as how smoking is bad – that wasn’t someone’s opinion everyone just decided to randomly grasp, scientific studies were responsible)….public opinion is somewhat purchasable (via media), but science is not.

 

  • If a scientist finds what he “wants to find”, that doesn’t matter because there will always be another scientist who will either be able to confirm his findings or prove them wrong. THAT’S science.

    Think of it as crowdsourcing, only instead of using millions of uninformed people you use thousands of really, really informed people. If science were the former, I would be inclined to agree with you, but it simply isn’t.

  • Words of warning, from Carl Sagan in 1995, who was one of Neil’s heroes.
    “When awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

 

  •  I have have always been fascinated by science, and I have enormous respect for Tyson and for the scientific method. I agree with much of what he says in this video.

 

  • What I find troubling is Tyson’s use of the word “denial” to dismiss anyone who may not share his perspective on things like climate change, evolution, etc. He uses it as one would in a psychological context, (i.e., one of the stages of grief), or in a political context (i.e., holocaust denial). It’s an unfortunate use of the word

  • The truth is that scientific consensus can be wrong. There was a time in history when all the best and brightest minds in science were convinced that the earth was at the center of the universe – until Copernicus demonstrated that it did not accurately predict the movement of the planets. For centuries, Newton’s theory of gravity was considered unassailable truth – until Einstein demonstrated that, out in space, it doesn’t work. The one thing that science has been able to prove with the greatest consistency is that the science of a previous era was wrong, and we’re never more than one discovery away from completely rethinking what we thought we knew.

  • As much as I revere brilliant men like Tyson, they do not have a monopoly on the truth, any more than do the philosophers, the religious, or God forbid, the politicians. Science is just a different approach to getting to the truth, and there is a difference between truth and orthodoxy, scientific or otherwise. Thinking for oneself is not denial. Questioning what is and is not proven is not denial. Skepticism is not denial. Disagreement with Neil deGrasse Tyson is not denial.