Hawking sez we gotta leave earth in 100 years

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.

 

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.

 

Some people lump Hawking and Tyson together because they don't like their opinions on somethin else we can't taco bout.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 ? "

 

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...

 

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 !!

 

Vacuum tubes. Vacuum of space. What's the problem? I'm thinking tube prices will come down exponentially!

 

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?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

Avocado no answer.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.