1. Win a Broadcaster or one of 3 Teles! The annual Supporting Member Giveaway is on. To enter Click Here. To see all the prizes and full details Click Here. To view the thread about the giveaway Click Here.

Hawking sez we gotta leave earth in 100 years

Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by blowtorch, May 4, 2017.

  1. Manual Slim

    Manual Slim Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    2,472
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Location:
    Up around the bend
    I think the thinking there might be that preserving "a future" children enables them to become adults in the first place. Then it's on them to do it for the following generation.
     
  2. Sconnie

    Sconnie Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Location:
    CO
    In the case of this article, Hawking is doing that. I think I would agree that he does that fairly often. Regarding Tyson, I agree a lot less. I'm not even sure why he came up in this thread considering his steadfast disagreement with Hawking here. I've read/listened/watched a lot of Neil Tyson and he includes a disclaimer regarding his opinions virtually every time. It's sad when a person's entitlement to their own opinion leads them to believe that everything anyone else says is just that other person's opinion.
     
  3. BigDaddyLH

    BigDaddyLH Tele Axpert Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    55,623
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Location:
    Kelowna, BC, Canuckistan
    Some people lump Hawking and Tyson together because they don't like their opinions on somethin else we can't taco bout.
     
    BuckSatan and Uncle Bob like this.
  4. Revv23

    Revv23 Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    2,050
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan
    Industry in this area hasn't really declined all that much. I think some of it has to do with all the vacant homes in the area. Amazing how fast mother nature will devour everything as soon as a people stop fighting it off. Nature is the strongest force on this planet. No mercy it is constantly destroying and rebuilding itself.
     
  5. Sconnie

    Sconnie Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Location:
    CO
    If by "opinion" you might mean "knowledge and understanding of relevant hard science" then I totally see what you're saying. But yes, I can see myself getting carried away with this topic so I will stop now.

    Reducing buildings to rubble is really easy for nature to handle, but there isn't really any positive feedback in systems like that. That's a huge part of the problem for the livability of this planet: the root of the issue is in fact quite difficult for nature-personified to reduce and the aforementioned run-away positive feedback is basic physics that is nothing to balk at.

    Nature is quite strong in some regards, but we humans certainly take the cake in other regards.
     
  6. PCollen

    PCollen Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,133
    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Man of the World

    He'll be long gone before then....and so will you and I. What makes him think that "threats ranging from climate change to destruction from nuclear war and genetically engineered viruses" won't exist on the next planet ? "
     
  7. william tele

    william tele Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    19,214
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    I don't see why we can't talk about the inability of Santa's sleigh to travel in hyperspace. If it could he would finish up much quicker...
     
    boris bubbanov and Darkness like this.
  8. motwang

    motwang Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,540
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Location:
    plattsburg mo.
    The alarmists in the 60's actually got laws passed to save our resources and work towards saving the planet, even though they didn't accomplish as much as they should have. But now we are going to revert back to pollution and using as much fossil fuels, and stripping the forests ! It ain't gonna be pretty !!
     
  9. soulgeezer

    soulgeezer Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,115
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    Sinatra's World
    Vacuum tubes. Vacuum of space. What's the problem? I'm thinking tube prices will come down exponentially! :p
     
  10. soulgeezer

    soulgeezer Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,115
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    Sinatra's World
    I have seen Tyson - whom I admire greatly, by the way - on various television shows making a comment something like, "If anybody doesn't agree with the scientific consensus, then that person is either willfully ignorant, foolish, or stupid."

    That comment, or another like it, is not an argument. It is a fallacious appeal to authority and is only used to support one's opinion and shut down debate. And, even worse, I know that Tyson knows that.

    Scientific consensus is not a substitute for truth. The essence of science is that every claim made is potentially falsifiable. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with a "consensus" is foolish or wrong is patently unscientific. Therefore, it must be the result of pushing one's opinion.

    Or, am I wrong on that?
     
  11. BigDaddyLH

    BigDaddyLH Tele Axpert Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    55,623
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Location:
    Kelowna, BC, Canuckistan
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
     
  12. Sconnie

    Sconnie Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Location:
    CO
    I see where you're coming from indeed. The way I understand it is that when he says something along those lines he is talking about the people who deny scientific consensus of any given topic without really understanding the process that occurs for the scientific community to reach that consensus. One should not praise the type of people who assert their opinion without understanding, or even acknowledging the process that is used by the scientific community to reach a consensus.

    Conversations are shut down when people do things like that. Folks with a baseless conviction because they are "entitled to their opinion" shuts down a conversation (science has nothing to do with debate) that might lead to better understanding.

    Truth is a misleading word, I think, because it implies an endgame. We can always know more about something than we currently do. The essence of science is to use verifiable and repeatable evidence to support a claim, thus to falsify a claim or attempt to disprove a consensus you still MUST provide evidence. Entitlement to an opinion gets you nowhere in science, you gotta show your work.

    It is very scientific to disregard unfounded statements as foolish. I don't like all the "happy-go-lucky everyone is right because we are free to think our own thoughts" BS. Scientific consensus is a pursuit of better understanding, not a statement of absolute truth. Gather evidence, show your math, make predictions (which is as important as explaining an observation), and be ready to be wrong, a lot. That's what Tyson is going for, in reality it's patently anti-authoritative.
     
  13. blowtorch

    blowtorch Telefied Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    34,718
    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Wisco
    No, you are 100% correct in that.

    Degrasse, Hawking, and many others would have it otherwise.

    Theory is often taught and portrayed as fact, and anyone who disagrees is often held up to ridicule.

    It it's any consolation, it has always been that way. Look at the many things that Science has held as irrefutable fact, that it's been forced to change it's stance on, when proved otherwise
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
    Revv23 likes this.
  14. motwang

    motwang Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,540
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Location:
    plattsburg mo.
    I think science is the closest thing to fact until we find a better answer. To totally deny it is rediculess. 2+2=4 and can be proven to be fact. To say that the earth was flat and the sun and Moon and Stars revolved around it was thought to be fact until it was disproven.
     
  15. Gladiator

    Gladiator TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    26
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Location:
    CA
    It's ok guys. Elon Musk is planning to land on mars in 8-10 years so we got 90 years to make Mars the new Earth lol

    Not but seriously, we need to get our heads out of our butts and take care of the one thing that's taking care of us!
     
    Darkness likes this.
  16. Darkness

    Darkness Tele-Afflicted

    Age:
    52
    Posts:
    1,131
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2016
    Location:
    Stygian Gulf
    Hence, the reason we bring up scientists who are qualified to talk about claims within their fields, yet constantly spew vitriol (often masked as humor) about subjects (no taco bout heer) that may well fit within science. More like narrow minded thinking to me.

    Hmm... I wonder what sentient life forms that have evolved for 6 billion years or more might be capable of via their technology. Hmmm. No. Wait. I can't consider that, I must continue on with my opinion. Geez.

    Or those that continue to ignore that we know nothing of how the particles (I think it's currently 61) might have winked into existence from null to create a universe, but will instead leap forward to their favorite starting point (nothing) and base their opinion on that. All the while ignoring that the non-eternal universe has not always existed. (Yes, current consensus is that the universe has not always been here)

    These 'scientists' get so hung up on labels created by men and cannot seem to use their noggins to apply science. (Again, tell me what humanity in 6 billion years from now might be capable of? What labels might we, in our current state of evolution, apply to said beings?

    Men create labels to define things, but the labels we create do not necessarily imply that we created or made up the thing we label.

    For example, we call trees "trees", but we didn't make up trees.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  17. BigDaddyLH

    BigDaddyLH Tele Axpert Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    55,623
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Location:
    Kelowna, BC, Canuckistan
    Avocado no answer.
     
  18. Darkness

    Darkness Tele-Afflicted

    Age:
    52
    Posts:
    1,131
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2016
    Location:
    Stygian Gulf
    You rock sir! Perfect answer. Apply science and keep "reasonable" open mindedness.

    Ever see the Star Trek episode with a Dowd in it? What labels created by men might apply? (Yes, I know Star Trek is science fiction. I'm just trying to make a point of reference a science minded person, like myself, might take)
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  19. BobRob

    BobRob Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    304
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Reminds me of the time I spent four months in the basement because noted half-wit Carl Sagan predicted "Nuclear Winter"
    after the first Gulf war. I still need to drive up to NY to pee on his grave.
     
  20. burntfrijoles

    burntfrijoles Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    7,049
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Location:
    Somewhere Over The Rainbow
    Yes, IMO you're wrong.
    It's not "one's" opinion. It the collective wisdom of the scientific community based on the preponderance of evidence or study. What you're suggesting is to ignore the most knowledgeable scientists and believe paid shills and their willing accomplices. In the face of the best available evidence you suggest we ignore it because of what? Ignorance? Phantom logic?
    It's roughly akin to a cancer patient ignoring the board certified oncologist at Sloan Kettering and listening to Dr Oz. "I hear what you're saying but I saw Dr. Oz say that Omega XL will do the job." In the case the patient is being "willfully ignorant, foolish, or stupid" and I would add "incredibly gullible".
    Listening to the prevailing assessment is prudent and to do otherwise is foolish.
     
    SolidSteak likes this.
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.