"No, I can't tell you WHY the hallway chirps. But I can measure it. I can predict the next and following chirp. I have a very good understanding of it and that's good enough for me. I'm not distracted by the philosophical side of WHY the hallway chirps"
It's a reference to the strangely common phenomenon whereby black people have low battery chirps coming from their smoke detectors all day every day and either don't know what's happening or don't care.
No it’s not a good way of doing science, science is best done as the pursuit of the fullness of God’s creation. That’s why all the best scientists who’ve made the greatest contributions have been Christians or in some cases one of the lesser religions.
Both Kepler and Newton were doing exactly that. Yet Kepler was still looking for the 'how' and not the 'why'. He assumed it was part of the divine plan, but he was still looking for how the planets moved.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's pretty great.
If that’s all you mean, sure, that has its place. But I think degas typhoid goes WAY beyond anything like that. He’s a proud anti-theist, he rejects the very validity of “why” as an area of inquest.
Depends on the kind of 'why'. Universal gravitation is a 'why' for Kepler's laws.
But why is there universal gravitation, and gravity at all? You can say because it's God's will, but that's not really a scientific question, and there is no way to settle it one way or the other.
I've moved away from anti-theism myself, but I don't think this particular point is wrong. I do disagree that science and religion is incompatible, which is another claim that they make, considering that modern science is basically Christian natural philosophy.
Science is great for figuring out mechanisms, and answering certain, tertiary versions of the question “why?”. Like:
Why is the sky blue?
-the light of the sun is being refracted by the atmosphere, the compounds in the atmosphere tend to refract with a wavelength that appears blue to humans.
Or like you mention, why do planets seem to travel in orbits? -> gravity
We merely push back the “why” by a single step: mass gives rise to an attractive force between itself and other masses. Why does mass do that? As the primordial universe simmered, the Higgs field crystallized into existence, which grants all particles with mass a “gravitational” force. Why? (Likely) because the existence of the Higgs field allows for the universe to proceed to a lower energy state. Why does the universe want to reach a lower energy state?
And so on and so forth. No matter how many steps we take, we will never reach the ultimate destination - the Prime Why. A bit like Zeno’s paradox.
Which is why the wise men of the past formulated the “Prime Mover”:
The only logical designation for the Prime Mover is God, and one of the few mechanisms available for connection with God is to attempt to understand His creation. Which is why all the greatest scientists had this as their motivation.
That's a useful way to do lab work for lab people who never intend their work to be useful in the slightest outside their lab. But for the rest of us, we might want to know why it fucking chirps because that's the first step to stopping it if we so choose.
That's important, because "Science" asks us for our tax money to fund their shit the majority of the time. So they probably should be providing tangible use at times for their works.
Historically, the limit has been technology and the isolation factor of being unable to consistently work with other great minds to fill in your own gaps. It was a lot more understandable to only be able to do part of the problem.
I used to like NDT a lot, because he's enjoyable to listen to when he's not spouting absolute nonsense.
Why does everything have to change for the demands of a deranged minority of crazy people? I sometimes see people in right-circles do that as well. "JUST CREATE A THIRD CATEGORY FOR TROONS". Why? Why does the whole world have to cater to lunatics and perverts?
The daily show, via editing and selective coverage, was every bit as dishonest as modern news media.
NDT is an articulate black man, which is more or less a superpower in today’s cultural climate. He doesn’t need to be interesting or insightful or even correct. All he needs to be is calm and well-spoken while also being black, and people from both sides of the fictional aisle will gush over him.
He's a good narrator, but every institution and all "Science Communicators" have been utterly corrupted by "The Message".
These people had a responsibility to be honest regarding Covid, and instead they chose that your death was preferrable so long as they got to keep their jobs, and not look at the actual fucking data.
What's wrong with them is they believe they are correct about everything and are holier than thou.
And the evidence they have to believe that is that's what they've been told over and over. It's an incredibly shaky foundation - and they feel that, deep down. It's like a Jenga tower that's very tall where you're super careful about which foundational blocks you're willing to poke at and sweating bullets trying to stay within the limits when placing new things on top.
Imagine what it would take for deGrasse to pull out that "trans are normal" brick from his ideological tower when it's precariously balanced on top of "blank slate" that's also barely resting on "wishful thinking" - the whole tower comes down.
This is why conservatives are happier with less mental illness, more attractive, can tolerate free speech and research 'the science' on their own, and so on. It's because their Jenga tower has three bricks on each level. This is what 'based' means, you have a good solid foundation in reality.
You answered your own question. You liked him, a lot of people did.
He went from a nobody living on a dream with passion to a massive celeb with attention out the ass. Something that corrupts many men, and caused him to sell his dreams to keep it rolling.
That's why his Twitter is filled with quippy "Science Man" tweets. Because like an abused dog trying to repeat actions that once led to affection, he just keeps hoping what used to get him massive acclaim and attention will work again.
We can accept reality of we have nutcases loose with no asylums available and that women's sports are not as popular as men's sports if they don't involve jumping and nowhere near as competitive.
Or you can be delusional and think that feminists will be happy with insane men coning into their spaces.
The vast majority of modern "trannies" could be treated well before an asylum would be needed, by simply not having a retarded culture. Modern trannies are 100% made, not born.
The guy is just an activist pretending to be a scientist. I checked the full interview and he was also wrong about covid not only trans stuff. He also likes to appeal to emotions with "why do you care?"
I thought he was cool 8 years ago, now I just think he is an affirmative hire activist.
This was always the inevitable result because as the author of The Second Sex talks about is abolishing the concept of gender.
Hilariously, since Money invented the concept of gender, and no matter how hard you try you can't abolish sex; this would basically force women back into the home and kitchen in the most reactionary policy seen in modern times.
It's actually more reactionary that "Equal Rights Equal Lefts"
So what you're saying is, over the long-term, we always arrive back to our destination. Regression to the mean. The mean in this case being the optimal natural role of women which is into the home and kitchen.
Nobody tell him that trans dominate female esports as well. So it's beyond a 'weight and are you taking pharma now', issue. Dudes are better than chicks in 95% of competitive categories. Doesn't matter if they are mentally ill, depraved dudes on chemical castrators, still better. Women as a block aren't fighting for their female only spaces yet, because they are scared of social media pillories. Men have already lost their male only spaces to women. Not sure what the solution is, other than blanket: Sports divided by sex, not weaslely shit.
It just needs more creative thought to make trenders in women's sports work. Abandon your older views! It's just an unsolved problem. (Or in other words, don't be so problematic. ;) )
Imagine asking him how he’d feel if he hadn’t had breakfast.
That's actually a good way for doing science, and it has led to progress in the past. E.g. Kepler explained the how, and Newton the why.
The problem is that he brings this attitude to other aspects as well, where he makes a total fool of himself and makes cavemen look intelligent.
I don't know about u/Graphenium talking about fullness of God's creation or whatever. However, Science really should look into why the hallway chirps.
If it's a consistent chirp that happens at the same time it's an HVAC problem. That's the only system that moves things on a timer.
It's a reference to the strangely common phenomenon whereby black people have low battery chirps coming from their smoke detectors all day every day and either don't know what's happening or don't care.
You can tell my job based on my response... I feel so dumb.
No it’s not a good way of doing science, science is best done as the pursuit of the fullness of God’s creation. That’s why all the best scientists who’ve made the greatest contributions have been Christians or in some cases one of the lesser religions.
You are trying way too hard.
3 year old account with zero posts. Clearly you’re just too damn cool to try.
Both Kepler and Newton were doing exactly that. Yet Kepler was still looking for the 'how' and not the 'why'. He assumed it was part of the divine plan, but he was still looking for how the planets moved.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's pretty great.
If that’s all you mean, sure, that has its place. But I think degas typhoid goes WAY beyond anything like that. He’s a proud anti-theist, he rejects the very validity of “why” as an area of inquest.
Depends on the kind of 'why'. Universal gravitation is a 'why' for Kepler's laws.
But why is there universal gravitation, and gravity at all? You can say because it's God's will, but that's not really a scientific question, and there is no way to settle it one way or the other.
I've moved away from anti-theism myself, but I don't think this particular point is wrong. I do disagree that science and religion is incompatible, which is another claim that they make, considering that modern science is basically Christian natural philosophy.
I think you touch on something important here:
Science is great for figuring out mechanisms, and answering certain, tertiary versions of the question “why?”. Like:
Why is the sky blue? -the light of the sun is being refracted by the atmosphere, the compounds in the atmosphere tend to refract with a wavelength that appears blue to humans.
Or like you mention, why do planets seem to travel in orbits? -> gravity
We merely push back the “why” by a single step: mass gives rise to an attractive force between itself and other masses. Why does mass do that? As the primordial universe simmered, the Higgs field crystallized into existence, which grants all particles with mass a “gravitational” force. Why? (Likely) because the existence of the Higgs field allows for the universe to proceed to a lower energy state. Why does the universe want to reach a lower energy state?
And so on and so forth. No matter how many steps we take, we will never reach the ultimate destination - the Prime Why. A bit like Zeno’s paradox.
Which is why the wise men of the past formulated the “Prime Mover”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
The only logical designation for the Prime Mover is God, and one of the few mechanisms available for connection with God is to attempt to understand His creation. Which is why all the greatest scientists had this as their motivation.
That's a useful way to do lab work for lab people who never intend their work to be useful in the slightest outside their lab. But for the rest of us, we might want to know why it fucking chirps because that's the first step to stopping it if we so choose.
That's important, because "Science" asks us for our tax money to fund their shit the majority of the time. So they probably should be providing tangible use at times for their works.
Historically, the limit has been technology and the isolation factor of being unable to consistently work with other great minds to fill in your own gaps. It was a lot more understandable to only be able to do part of the problem.
I don't get it. What's wrong with these people?
I used to like NDT a lot, because he's enjoyable to listen to when he's not spouting absolute nonsense.
Why does everything have to change for the demands of a deranged minority of crazy people? I sometimes see people in right-circles do that as well. "JUST CREATE A THIRD CATEGORY FOR TROONS". Why? Why does the whole world have to cater to lunatics and perverts?
The daily show, via editing and selective coverage, was every bit as dishonest as modern news media.
NDT is an articulate black man, which is more or less a superpower in today’s cultural climate. He doesn’t need to be interesting or insightful or even correct. All he needs to be is calm and well-spoken while also being black, and people from both sides of the fictional aisle will gush over him.
Show one instance in the 600,000,000 hours of footage of him yammering where he says anything of value
Can I plead the fifth?
No, but I’ll offer you a plea deal instead:
Plead guilty to heresy and gaytheism and you can bring your two favorite anime to the gulag
Rejected! I don't even have one favorite anime, so that's not going to help me.
THEN YOU ARE LOST
He's a good narrator, but every institution and all "Science Communicators" have been utterly corrupted by "The Message".
These people had a responsibility to be honest regarding Covid, and instead they chose that your death was preferrable so long as they got to keep their jobs, and not look at the actual fucking data.
What's wrong with them is they believe they are correct about everything and are holier than thou.
And the evidence they have to believe that is that's what they've been told over and over. It's an incredibly shaky foundation - and they feel that, deep down. It's like a Jenga tower that's very tall where you're super careful about which foundational blocks you're willing to poke at and sweating bullets trying to stay within the limits when placing new things on top.
Imagine what it would take for deGrasse to pull out that "trans are normal" brick from his ideological tower when it's precariously balanced on top of "blank slate" that's also barely resting on "wishful thinking" - the whole tower comes down.
This is why conservatives are happier with less mental illness, more attractive, can tolerate free speech and research 'the science' on their own, and so on. It's because their Jenga tower has three bricks on each level. This is what 'based' means, you have a good solid foundation in reality.
You answered your own question. You liked him, a lot of people did.
He went from a nobody living on a dream with passion to a massive celeb with attention out the ass. Something that corrupts many men, and caused him to sell his dreams to keep it rolling.
That's why his Twitter is filled with quippy "Science Man" tweets. Because like an abused dog trying to repeat actions that once led to affection, he just keeps hoping what used to get him massive acclaim and attention will work again.
We can accept reality of we have nutcases loose with no asylums available and that women's sports are not as popular as men's sports if they don't involve jumping and nowhere near as competitive.
Or you can be delusional and think that feminists will be happy with insane men coning into their spaces.
Trannies are sick, disturbed people. They should be in asylums being treated, not out in society.
The vast majority of modern "trannies" could be treated well before an asylum would be needed, by simply not having a retarded culture. Modern trannies are 100% made, not born.
Modern trannies are overwhelmingly products of institutional anti-whiteness.
The guy is just an activist pretending to be a scientist. I checked the full interview and he was also wrong about covid not only trans stuff. He also likes to appeal to emotions with "why do you care?"
I thought he was cool 8 years ago, now I just think he is an affirmative hire activist.
This was always the inevitable result because as the author of The Second Sex talks about is abolishing the concept of gender.
Hilariously, since Money invented the concept of gender, and no matter how hard you try you can't abolish sex; this would basically force women back into the home and kitchen in the most reactionary policy seen in modern times.
It's actually more reactionary that "Equal Rights Equal Lefts"
So what you're saying is, over the long-term, we always arrive back to our destination. Regression to the mean. The mean in this case being the optimal natural role of women which is into the home and kitchen.
Nobody tell him that trans dominate female esports as well. So it's beyond a 'weight and are you taking pharma now', issue. Dudes are better than chicks in 95% of competitive categories. Doesn't matter if they are mentally ill, depraved dudes on chemical castrators, still better. Women as a block aren't fighting for their female only spaces yet, because they are scared of social media pillories. Men have already lost their male only spaces to women. Not sure what the solution is, other than blanket: Sports divided by sex, not weaslely shit.
It just needs more creative thought to make trenders in women's sports work. Abandon your older views! It's just an unsolved problem. (Or in other words, don't be so problematic. ;) )