Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jmervyn, Dec 3, 2014.
Take a guess!
I is a fully evolved astrophysisisistt! 8/10!~
You are a Fully Evolved Astrophysicist! 10/10
Helps that I've read their books and listened to their lectures (yes, by both of them).
Pfft. I took it COLD, dude!
So you don't know much of anything about these two? Both of them use a fair bit of poetic language - which is probably why the quiz exists in the first place. What's your take on these fellas?
I got a 5/10, cosmic pilgrim.
I admit I am extremely hostile against new age "foo foo" and whatnot, so I kinda interpreted them from that perspective .
That and I do not really have done any stuff regarding Neil deGrasse Tyson.
"Chopra" and "poetic"
I'm probably dumb and after spending 40 sec not knowing how to access the test I gave up. However, I prefer this one, anyway...
I highly recommend doing the quiz, it's fairly challenging since both Chopra's quotes and the randomly generated ones are word salads
Woo! Space Cadet! I win!
Later all you silly astrophysicists. You can sit around talking about space all you want. I'm actually going to space.
I don't know these two, but after taking a glance on their Wikipedia pages, they seem to be charismatic celebrities on cosmology respectively alternate medicine, having a talent at impressing everyday people with what they believe to be wisdom.
Neil de Grasse Tyson is a cosmologist which is an astronomer who's dealing with the "the big picture". The problem of cosmology is that its theories are often very hard to be falsified (i.e. the means to prove them wrong might need more than we can achieve) which is considered a flaw in science, but not in what SCIENCE! makes up. Therefore, some cosmologists tend to propagate more SCIENCE! than a physicist should.
Deepak Chopra seems to propagate a kind of alternate medicine. He's feigning scientific knowledge and uses a kind of quantum physics pishposh (I doubt he's understanding the rock-hard mathematics about it which is needed to make any scientific statements involving quantum mechanics). I'm not saying that he's doing it on purpose, but he's probably a very narcissistic person, being unable to learn from those which he regards as inferior or less "wise". What makes him worse is that he's applying his flawed views on his patients. He reminds me a bit of esoteric manipulators like gurus. He's taking advantage of certain people and I tend to assign more serious character flaws, bad intents and potential to do damage to him than to NdGT.
BTW, 5/10 is the average of what you get when guessing randomly. I scored at 4/10 which is pretty well within the averagy deviation of a random result .
Excuses, excuses. Maybe I'll call you "subby" a while for sub-standard?
Dredd, you wanted to know what my take on both were, though I want to flip the question and ask WTF IS A PROUD ATHEIST EXTENSIVELY READING DEEPAK CHOPRA FOR??!?
Chopra is a new age snake oil salesman who owes his fame (success, and probably existence) to Oprah. The only thing he proves is that God yet again isn't going to protect us from our own stupidity. Timothy Leary was more enlightened.
Tyson is a SCIENCE!!! snake oil salesman-cum-planetarium director who owes his fame to Internet st00pids and falsifying quotes about George Bush and other leftist tropes. "Ooh, he's like Carl Sagan, but BLACK! SQUEEE!!"
There were soooo many good Tyson dishonesty meme images that I couldn't choose just one. So in the interests of space... or is it time-space? I'll just let y'all choose.
I thought I would do better at distinguishing words of a physicist from those of somebody whose kind I usually despise. It gives me a bit of an impression that these two have more in common than I feel comfortable with, but I think it was the purpose of the article to achieve that.
Not to be confused with...
... I guess.
Know your enemies.
Also, I think you'd be mildly shocked by the contents of my bookshelves.
With "SCIENCE!", I mean making up a "dumbed down"* version of a scientific theory and then twisting and abusing it in order to promote some agenda.
*: No offense meant, physics is actually a lot about things which 90% of the people don't understand at all... uhm and I also don't mean to place myself beyond them just because I believe to know a bit about it (note to myself: add further political correctness here later if necessary)
So Wikipedia is lying because the authors of that article and the postings are telling the truth, right?
I can smell agendas when they are flowing around my nose. That article doesn't just smell of serving one, it stinks.
People missing their agenda on a Wikipedia page, what a waste of time!
I used the word SCIENCE!? in a restaurant at lunch today. Fortunately the waitress knew that I meant "a chocolate milkshake".
Words! I love 'em!!onehundredeleven!
Ha. If Chopra's your enemy, you've got more important things to worry about. Bear in mind I don't take Rick Warren or Joel Osteen very seriously either, and they're on my side...
Probably not, and I could likely say the same - perhaps even with more validity!
...though I got rid of all the Anne Rice novels; the only one that IMO was actually any good at all was The Mummy.
I just finished an installation of SPED software on a client laptop. The Windows installer status bar widget displayed 103% completion. Didn't know O.J. could code...
Of course. You think I'm going to just put something like this out there when I'm talking the same issue in this edition of the God thread?
Well, I probably would have in any event, sure. It's just that this one was well-timed.
Dredd was poking us both. That's not dissimilar to what I've been claiming, but Dredd is being persnickety about dictionary-quality terminology.
Thing is, Tyson is not even a Carl Sagan type - he's a pop scientist like Bill Nye, mostly glib shtick and light on actual cred (not that I'm remotely claiming to be better informed - just that his frequent dishonesty has undermined his standing).
Maybe you missed the discussion - hardly surprising. Tyson makes his meat off of media (hosting NOVA to start, I believe) so when it was discovered he's just making shit up, people asked him about it. He continued to equivocate, and eventually made a non-apology-apology in hopes that his fanboy base will ignore it. Wiki editors support him in that endeavor, displaying bias where claims of unbiased editing are supposedly valid (worth reading even though you dislike even remotely conservative viewpoints).
The business about demanding an apology, apologizing and reactions to both is like throwing snakes at each other and fending them off. I'm surprised how many people believe that it's a matter of honesty.
So you don't believe honesty matters for public figures, particularly in media?
It depends on making the other look bad and making the impression of being honest.
Different phrasing, bitte. What do you think "depends" if a public figure is making deliberate misstatements in a desire to manipulate their audience? (Yes, it's quite on-topic, though really in regard to the Ferguson thread)
It doesn't matter what's true. The impression is important. That's also the case with honesty and appearing as such. Being honest can help at making that impression, but so does being a good liar.