Argument from Ignorance

[Decaf]

This right here is a fantastic explanation of the scientific perspective as it relates to any issue. I'm absolutely going to steal this argument in the future

YouTube- Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.

 

[NoID10ts]

That's awesome!

This kind of reasoning is great for anything ......... except a search for God, of course.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

He's a little funny, but mostly obnoxious I think... While his reasoning is right, he's definitely full of himself.

Although, the 'what to do if your abducted' plan is pretty brilliant and would absolutely work.
​

 

[Claverhouse]

Scientists are beginning to become TV-Evangelists... Maybe it's a boisterous Yank thing, since the latter are unknown outside the States.

I scarcely disagree, but he could have wrapped it up in one quarter of the time.



Claverhouse

 

[flow]

What is this guy's name again? I love him!

 

[Decaf]

He's a little funny, but mostly obnoxious I think... While his reasoning is right, he's definitely full of himself. ​

In my experience most people who discuss science from the stage come across as pretty full of themselves. The exception might be some of the TED talks I've watched (where a significant portion of the audience have given talks themselves and it would be hard not to qualify your statements in front of them), but I think otherwise its very hard to publicly attack an idea from the stage (in this case UFOs) without seeming condescending.

Scientists are beginning to become TV-Evangelists... Maybe it's a boisterous Yank thing, since the latter are unknown outside the States.

I think its a population thing. If a country has a certain population of people working as scientists, there's bound to be some that are inclined towards public debate. The US has a huge population advantage over any European country to make that happen, and it also happens to have an extrovert bias in its culture. Add to that that Dr. Tyson hosts a show on PBS and he's clearly thus inclined.

Oh, and Richard Dawkins is British, in case you wanted an example of a non-American Science Evangelist.

What is this guy's name again? I love him!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

 

[NoID10ts]

I'm not trying to start a fight, these are serious questions:


Is it possible to be passionate about what you are saying without running the risk of being labeled "arrogant"?

At what point do you cross this line and go too far in your incredulity?

Must we treat all ideas as equally valid and worthy of consideration in order to avoid being labeled an "evangelist" or "arrogant"? If not, where is the line of distinction that we must be wary of?

Have we become too thin skinned and sensitive when it comes to public discourse?

Should the arguments themselves be weighed on their own merit regardless of the one delivering them?

 

[Claverhouse]

...but I think otherwise its very hard to publicly attack an idea from the stage (in this case UFOs) without seeming condescending.

Condescension is fully justified when discussing UFOs.

I think its a population thing. If a country has a certain population of people working as scientists, there's bound to be some that are inclined towards public debate. The US has a huge population advantage over any European country to make that happen, and it also happens to have an extrovert bias in its culture. Add to that that Dr. Tyson hosts a show on PBS and he's clearly thus inclined.

I was rather mentioning that religious TV-Evangelism is a phenomenon peculiar to the USA. Aggressive piety is rather frowned upon in Europe, not necessarily due to politically correct anti-christianism --- plus the fact that some of the evangelists spoil their finish by occasionally appealing for donations to continue their holy work has a sceptical effect upon our jaded sensibilities. There are plenty of scientists chatting away, usually at four in the morning, on TV ( I should assume, since I haven't a television: if I wanted to see something it's available on internet ).

It just seems that as in the example shown, scientists are in America are turning into persuader-entertainers rather than, as here, dull earnest savants, dressed in the height of 1970s polyester, monotonously conversing in a script laced with forced friendliness towards each other and the audience. Lotsa christian names are used:

"Yes, Jim, when the co-efficient reaches maximum capacity, the lever is forced and the gases implode into the upper chamber; so impelling the hour hand one notch forward."

Woodenly: "Really, Brian ? That's fascinating."

"Yes it is. Jim. Now, turning our attention to the flex-inhibItor, we see..." and so on.

Oh, and Richard Dawkins is British, in case you wanted an example of a non-American Science Evangelist.

I should rather classify him as an Atheist Religious TV-Evangelist, making a handsome living by apologetics. I place him exactly with David Icke. They both have forums dedicated to them and their preachings*.



Claverhouse





* As does, oddly, Billy Bragg.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You should not discount someone's opinion merely because they present it in a persuasive, entertaining way. If all scientists has such an ability; I think the general public would be far more prone to appreciate and understand science. Of course you should be skeptical of everything, but that also includes questioning the 'proper' monotone scientists as well.