Bill Nye to flat Earthers and science deniers: 'It affects all of us'

Oct 15, 2020
1
1
10
Science Is Dead — Long Live the Scientocracy!
Science went from a method to a fundamentalist belief system in under 400 years.
The year was 1660. London. Europe had been ravaged for centuries by the black plague, but even worse by regressive theocracies. This is the year that the first organization of scientists associated under the name The Royal Society. The entire spirit of the enterprise could be summed up by the three words they chose as their motto — NULLIUS IN VERBIM. “Take nobody’s word for it.”
Their mission statement was crystal clear in their intentions for science. Science was to be a method by which individuals investigated phenomena, not a priesthood of infallible experts whose authority became law. That is what state churches had done for centuries throughout Europe, and the Protestant Revolution that disrupted theocracy had also informed academia and planted the seeds of modern science. It was to be the end of dogma and the frontier of self-ownership and critical thinking.
360 years later it started taking its final breathes. In 2020 the majority of humanity collectively ceased skepticism. They became more afraid of other peoples paranoia than their own potential gullibility and blind faith. They began taking the authorities word for just about everything. Almost none of them could understand enough to determine if the information that corporate owned and sponsored media/government officials saturated their newly digitized world with was valid. They didn’t know nearly enough about science to verify the data, let alone to do their own independent observations, testing and interpretations. They were happy to believe what they were told.
This was largely due to three factors. First of all they couldn’t all possibly investigate for themselves. They had become so specialized and buried in the endless loop of pointless labor and consumption that drives capitalism, it wasn’t possible for them to understand. So they decided to take experts words for it. Why would the oligarchs lie to them in scientific terminology?
Secondly, they mostly didn’t even know what science was. They just knew that it often got the job done, and falsely believed it was the only view one could hold except for religion. It was the one true way.
Finally, and most importantly, they got scared. Out of fears that had been concocted by the perilous sophistry of statistics, and often without any personal experience to confirm the veracity of the boogeyman allegedly stalking them, they gave fully into a new priesthood and insisted the state follow its edicts. The scientocracy was born.
Doublespeak, absurdity and fanaticism gripped the scientocracy. Self-righteous fervor fueled its supporters, and they reaffirmed their piousness with the self-congratulatory heroism of obedience and performative goodness.
R.I.P. Science 1660–2020
To be fair, it had already nearly committed suicide in previous years. Quantum mechanics began pointing impeccably towards an observer created reality. The realism and materialism which had driven science was being made scientifically obsolete by the discovery that our experiences are shaped by our beliefs and expectations. So science sorta nibbled at the crust of its death before ever taking the slice. We need not mourn it.
But mark my words, the scientocracy, which need only appeal to science in order to manufacture consent, that situation is going to get bleak fast. Welcome to The Dark Ages 2.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
201
23
105
They didn’t know nearly enough about science to verify the data, let alone to do their own independent observations, testing and interpretations.
(This one sounds like the Ghost of Vonnegut!)


This has been a plan for quite some time. Ike Eisenhower noted to the nation the importance of educating the masses so that they would make good decisions when voting for leadership. We all know how that worked out.

He also noted a growing threat within the country, a threat he termed"The Military-Industrial Complex."

It is still with us. As are so many other threats, known and unknown. And as you no doubt are aware, some threats are created more equal than others.........
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96
Nov 26, 2019
2
3
15
Science Is Dead — Long Live the Scientocracy!
...
But mark my words, the scientocracy, which need only appeal to science in order to manufacture consent, that situation is going to get bleak fast. Welcome to The Dark Ages 2.0.
Ok, I WILL "mark your words" How good have you been at prophesy in the past? Can you point to some that you have made that actually came true???

Only those who don't understand or stubbornly won't "believe" (but it is NOT a belief system) Science would call it Scientocracy!!!

No. It is absolutely impossible for each of us to verify the knowledge that Science gives us. We need to accept that there really are experts who really do that work. BUT if you can't understand any of it... that is YOUR fault and not the realm of science!!! It is pretty understandable on many fundamental levels if you but only look and study!

Thanks for your "words of wisdom"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96
Oct 17, 2020
25
0
50
So, just a thought... but maybe if you stop oversimplifying peoples perspectives by applying demeaning labels to them, they will be more likely to listen. When you call these people names you are subjecting them to the anger and scrutiny of other elements of the population, who in many cases are not so well informed as they themselves would like to believe. People will always believe outlandish things, and the only way to move forward is by respecting each others opinions and standing firm in our own, so long as the logic that supports them remains solid and transparent.
 
Oct 16, 2020
6
2
35
I can see where the anti-maskers are coming from at the very least. They are actually following the science since for every study saying a mask will work, there is one that says it won't. Both wearing and not wearing a mask can be seen as "following the science" since each one has science backing it. The average person isn't exactly capable of performing a peer review of the studies to find a technical fault if any in the process that was utilized to collect data or if a conclusion drawn for said data is flawed or not. It doesn't help either that masks when worn are only said to be effective in one way. (And that only certain masks have a meaningful impact. None of those thin face shields they use fishing the flats of florida work but hey, it's a mask still right?) That is to say a mask only helps curtail your own spread. It does not protect you from recieving the virus. Many people out there will throw their hands up in the air and resign themselves to the fact that they will catch it regardless of if they wear a mask or not and well, that's actually true. The counter argument to this is "well if EVERYONE wears a mask then no-one can catch it since there is no spread". This is true as well but this isn't feasible. You simply won't get that level of compliance. They couldn't even get that kind of compliance over in China. Most people wore them but you still had some that didn't. They might've gotten disappeared at some point down the line for it though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96
Oct 18, 2020
4
3
15
Yes, you're right. We should not label people who deny science with demeaning names. But "when you deny the body of knowledge that's been discovered through the process of science, you're holding all of us back. " This is why I highly recommend summary execution rather than name-calling. The former is a much more effective method for keeping us moving forward. No one wants to be held back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Oct 16, 2020
6
2
35
Yes, you're right. We should not label people who deny science with demeaning names. But "when you deny the body of knowledge that's been discovered through the process of science, you're holding all of us back. " This is why I highly recommend summary execution rather than name-calling. The former is a much more effective method for keeping us moving forward. No one wants to be held back.
Just to play devils advocate, forward isn't always better. Especially when it leads to the edge of a cliff. Healthy skepticism used to be what drove science forward since it lead to a neverending chain of studies and experiments meant to disprove a skeptic view of a topic which lead to more advancements in a field of study. What you're suggesting is eerily in line with the catholic church's point of view regarding Copernicus. To them, he "denied the body of knowledge that's been discovered through the process of science." By suggesting that all of the scientists and the consensus before him was wrong about the earth being at the center of what was the known universe at the time. You would've had him summarily executed on the spot for "holding us back". Keep in mind that if you choose to tackle this thought exercise for yourself, you must not look at this through the lens of "well I know that the earth orbits the sun so Copernicus must be right and I would've agreed with him". If you as an ardent follower of the established science must come from the position of the sun orbiting the earth and then think of what your reaction would be to someone denying this and providing proof in the face of the proof you have in your hand stating the opposite.
 
Oct 18, 2020
4
3
15
The operative phrase is "HEALTHY skepticism". And this is indeed part of the scientific method. So I have no quarrel with that, nor was I suggesting that the scientific method be cast aside. Those who deny the body of knowledge obtained through the scientific method surely should be held to account. Where is their scientific evidence for an alternative hypothesis? They almost always have none.

But to be the devil's advocate of your devil's advocate, you would think that even if you do end up going off course or even over the cliff, science and the truth does not die. That is the beauty of science and the scientific method. It is not infallible, but lives on. And it affords you the means to reverse course, then discover and move forward along the "correct" path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Oct 16, 2020
6
2
35
The operative phrase is "HEALTHY skepticism". And this is indeed part of the scientific method. So I have no quarrel with that, nor was I suggesting that the scientific method be cast aside. Those who deny the body of knowledge obtained through the scientific method surely should be held to account. Where is their scientific evidence for an alternative hypothesis? They almost always have none.

But to be the devil's advocate of your devil's advocate, you would think that even if you do end up going off course or even over the cliff, science and the truth does not die. That is the beauty of science and the scientific method. It is not infallible, but lives on. And it affords you the means to reverse course, then discover and move forward along the "correct" path.
It came off to me as you claiming that because a scientific expert makes a claim with a study backing them that it must be considered true so I apologize for the misunderstanding. Now I can say that the flat earthers have no valid evidence. They have a few photos that actually show a flat earth but this is explained by the fact that the earth is in fact not a perfect sphere. There are some flat spots out there on land but flat earth as a concept is unequivocaly debunked on the high seas.
Now I want to preface this by saying that years ago I'd have never thought I'd see myself providing a defense for anti-vaxxers but I find myself here now in that I found one example that I can't particularly argue against and that is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Those that were sick were told they would be recieving treatment for their infection but were injected with a placebo treatment instead. I would hope anti-vaxxers aren't claiming that vaccines themselves do not work since they obviously do. Their issue is that they don't trust those that provide the vaccines since there is no way for the average person to check the integrity of the vaccine they are being given other than just simply taking the word of the group providing it (in this case the US Public Health Service). I fully understand how that isn't enough for some people and I feel these organizations could do better in fostering the trust they need rather than simply dismiss them as "dumb anti-vaxxers" and laugh.
Anti-maskers is a prickly one because it's so recent that the science itself is not all that clear. We both know that always takes time and money. We will see scientists and scientific studies backing both sides of this for a while until it eventually gets cleared up. Myself personally am in the camp of the mask isn't as effective as its claimed to be and that social distancing itself has been carrying the brunt of the weight of slowing the spread of the virus. I'd rather see 3 people in a room meters apart not wearing masks than 10 people clustered together wearing masks. Thats the conclusion I've ended up drawing off of the data I've been exposed to.
 
Last edited:
Oct 18, 2020
4
3
15
Well just a few thoughts in reaction:

1. Flat Earthers do NOT have any photos showing flat expanses of Earth that is flat because the Earth is not a perfect sphere. The reason the Earth appears flat anywhere on the surface is that the planet is humongous. It only appears flat, but ask any civil engineer - even over short distances, you MUST account for the curvature of the Earth in their work.

2. As far as masks, peer reviewed scientific studies overwhelmingly indicate that masks are effective in reducing transmission of the virus. They are not perfect. You are wrong when you state that there are as many studies that indicate masks are not effective. That is simply false. You may be thinking of the early studies which claimed that the virus can pass through masks and that only N95 grade masks block the virus. That was actually true. But what scientists had eventually found is that the wearing of masks greatly diminish the transmission of the virus by INFECTED people. So the reason to wear a mask is not to prevent yourself from inhaling the virus, but to prevent yourself from exhaling the virus in droplets of spittle, thus protecting OTHERS from having to inhale infected droplets. This is why, in countries where the usage of masks was widespread, the incidence of virus transmission was low than countries where mask wearing was not widespread. Frankly, the scientists also indicated that it is not simply the wearing of masks that reduce contagion rates, but a combination of measures. In other words, over 10 months the studies and learnings have evovled! There is no longer a question about whether masks are an effective part of the measures needed to combat the problem of coronavirus.

3. The antivaxxer debate is more complicated when it comes to the coronavirus. There is no debate whether the methodology of vaccination is effective or not. The issue is whether or not the correct methodology is being pursued for coronavirus vaccines. It typically takes years of scientific study to determine whether a vaccine is safe or not (i.e., whether there are dangerous side effects). I will personally NOT be taking any vaccine that was rushed out over 3 months of phase 3 studies. I am not an antivaxxer, but I am also not going to trust any study that did not COMPLETELY follow the scientific method. These short time frames for phase 3 testing and analysis are a sign of political desperation...not science.
 
Oct 16, 2020
6
2
35
Well just a few thoughts in reaction:

1. Flat Earthers do NOT have any photos showing flat expanses of Earth that is flat because the Earth is not a perfect sphere. The reason the Earth appears flat anywhere on the surface is that the planet is humongous. It only appears flat, but ask any civil engineer - even over short distances, you MUST account for the curvature of the Earth in their work.

2. As far as masks, peer reviewed scientific studies overwhelmingly indicate that masks are effective in reducing transmission of the virus. They are not perfect. You are wrong when you state that there are as many studies that indicate masks are not effective. That is simply false. You may be thinking of the early studies which claimed that the virus can pass through masks and that only N95 grade masks block the virus. That was actually true. But what scientists had eventually found is that the wearing of masks greatly diminish the transmission of the virus by INFECTED people. So the reason to wear a mask is not to prevent yourself from inhaling the virus, but to prevent yourself from exhaling the virus in droplets of spittle, thus protecting OTHERS from having to inhale infected droplets. This is why, in countries where the usage of masks was widespread, the incidence of virus transmission was low than countries where mask wearing was not widespread. Frankly, the scientists also indicated that it is not simply the wearing of masks that reduce contagion rates, but a combination of measures. In other words, over 10 months the studies and learnings have evovled! There is no longer a question about whether masks are an effective part of the measures needed to combat the problem of coronavirus.

3. The antivaxxer debate is more complicated when it comes to the coronavirus. There is no debate whether the methodology of vaccination is effective or not. The issue is whether or not the correct methodology is being pursued for coronavirus vaccines. It typically takes years of scientific study to determine whether a vaccine is safe or not (i.e., whether there are dangerous side effects). I will personally NOT be taking any vaccine that was rushed out over 3 months of phase 3 studies. I am not an antivaxxer, but I am also not going to trust any study that did not COMPLETELY follow the scientific method. These short time frames for phase 3 testing and analysis are a sign of political desperation...not science.
 
Oct 16, 2020
6
2
35
Two things. The first is that you can physically see curvature of the earth when on a ship in the ocean. I've witnessed it personally as you watch the tip of a tower appear over the horizon and watch it materialize from the top down as you get closer. Their pics are from what I've seen from a higher elevation looking down toward a valley or plain. You can imagine how flat that appears. The second, you WILL be called an anti-vaxxer for not trusting this vaccine. That sentiment alone is why I defend anti-vaxxers as long as their issue isn't with vaccines and how they work but more with their trust of who is providing it. You've ended up agreeing more than you disagreed with me but added on alot more relevant info than I could put forth. I'll fold on the mask issue. I'd rather just stay away from people all together than be around people and wearing a mask. If forced to be in a crowd I'll wear it of course but even so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CVAngelo

ASK THE COMMUNITY