The ‘settled’ consensus du jour

[futurecurrents]

Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation
Yahoo News‎ - 2 days ago
Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said she thought the odds that the universe isn't "real" ... that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high.



Why is it that cultural marxists like yourself just can't stand the truth?
Any facts that didn't agree with marxist tyrants in russia or china were verboten, with penalty of banishment or death.
Now, cultural marxists employ similar tactics. People like futurecurrents demand that only their side be considered legitimate and any other conclusions are illegitimate and must be punished.
It should be the very first sign to anyone who can think that they are being lied to by these thugs.

Like I thought. An out of context hit piece on Tyson by a business writer. The idea is to discredit science and Tyson is a face of it. Because, hey if Tyson said something dumb then manmade global warming is not true.

This is what he actually said.



Tyson uses a thought experiment to imagine a life form that's as much smarter than us as we are than dogs, chimps, or other terrestrial mammals.

"What would we look like to them? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence," he says.

Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.

"And if that's the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment,
to imagine a life form that's as much smarter than us as we are than dogs, chimps, or other terrestrial mammals.

"What would we look like to them? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence," he says.

Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.

"And if that's the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment,"

 

[Covertibility]

A little context for the people citing quotes:

It's an interesting discussion which neither side knows for sure.

As for the thread, just remember one of the most fundamental rules of the universe: Ignore the republican if he's talking about anything science related.

 

[Tom B]

As nutty as this is, it's not dangerous, because it isn't going anyplace. It's just another example of how unhelpful politicizing scientific issues can be.

George Will is getting a bit nuttier himself as he gets a bit older. [We are contemporaries so I am permitted to say this, knowing I am pigeonholing myself as well.] There is no better example of a George Will-ism than his: "Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism..." He makes the error of over qualifying with inclusion of "always" and then suggests the non sequitur of authoritarianism coming out of progressiveness without any argument in support of the connection. He throws this statement out as though it is self-evident truth that needs no questioning and no supporting argument.

Most of us would be cautious to make such a claim that doesn't seem self-evident nearly so much as contradictory, but not George. He puts a spoonful of his jam on your toast and expects you to eat it without asking the flavor first.

A bogus prosecution by the government is dangerous. The prosecutors know that they will not not win the case. Their objective is to punish Exxon financially for free speech. As a side note, George Will probably should have used "almost always" instead of "always".

 

[Tom B]

A little context for the people citing quotes:

It's an interesting discussion which neither side knows for sure.

As for the thread, just remember one of the most fundamental rules of the universe: Ignore the republican if he's talking about anything science related.

It is clear that the subject of the article is beyond your comprehension.

 

[ETcallhome]

A bogus prosecution by the government is dangerous. The prosecutors know that they will not not win the case. Their objective is to punish Exxon financially for free speech. As a side note, George Will probably should have used "almost always" instead of "always".

BRING IT ON BABY! Take it all the way to the SUPREME ALL KNOWING NEVER WRONG COURT!

America could use a good civics class (since it was eliminated when the Dept of Education took over.)

Whistleblower status for any scientist who doesn't completely agree with the governments 97%?

oh that would be good. I think you would find both sides being threatened with reduced funding based on their conclusions.

How do you introduce capitalism and competition into scientific theories? First thing is to eliminate the "Professional Class". Historically these were people who were paid a reasonable salary to operate outside of business.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

exxon is not the only one involved. They have tried to pull in conservative public interest groups and force them to reveal their donors. Classic Marxist intimidation tactic, plus these legal fees quickly become an enormous burden to groups who can't ring up soros for a check.

 

[fhl]

Also notice how that when a left wing argument is being made by gov't there is a narrative that you can't fight city hall who has deep pockets and unlimited resources, etc, etc.

But when a republican legislature passes a law and it's challenged the narrative immediately changes to how they have to repeal the law because they can't waste money fighting the challenge because the state already has very limited resources and this will put a strain on the budget, etc etc.

 

[Arnie]

Maybe all this warming is a simulation?

 

[ETcallhome]

Maybe all this warming is a simulation?

Maybe God is just paper trading for His own amusement.

 

[jem]

of course the pre commies what you to ignore what the conservatives say, because we actually look to the peer reviewed science for answers... why they want to use fake consensus crap to allow govt to steal your money and your liberty.

1. remember there is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming other than failed models.

2. there is no science showing life evolved from non life or even a complete plausible pathway yet.

but... is there one leftist on this board other than piezoe who admits the truth without bullshitting for pages on end here?

When it comes to science don't pay attention to what other people say or the "consensus" a consensus does not mean shit to real scientists. Reproducible science matters.... if you wish to see a leftist b.s. their asses off... ask them to produce the science.

A little context for the people citing quotes:

It's an interesting discussion which neither side knows for sure.

As for the thread, just remember one of the most fundamental rules of the universe: Ignore the republican if he's talking about anything science related.