Dan Rather weighs in… https://steady.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-science
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 6:31 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV < [email protected]> wrote: > What I think Stewart was doing was assuming things like the existence of > antimatter - something which has been created at accelerators for a few > decades - were still unknown or still unproven when they aren't. If we (or > he) were talking about something a bit more theoretical - say superstrings > or dark matter - I'd be a bit more charitable. > > Put another way, I think because Jon didn't or couldn't understand > something in bleeding edge physics he was inclined to think the scientific > conclusion was at the very least overblown, if not equivalent to assertions > about the existence of God. He's not as critical of a thinker as some > consider him to be. > > David > > On Saturday, June 19, 2021, 4:46:28 PM PDT, Melissa P < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Perhaps I don't understand you, because I assume you know how science > works. > > Substitute "still unknown" or "still unproven" for "faith" and I'd be okay > with what you wrote. The beauty of science is what we don't know and hope > one day to find out. > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:22 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV < > [email protected]> wrote: > > PGage's point reminded me of something I noted back when Stewart hosted > The Daily Show. J-Stew interviewed author Marilynne Robinson in 2010 about > one of her books. IMO, neither was particularly effective in articulating > their points, but here's the interview: > > > https://www.cc.com/video/87tj6r/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-marilynne-robinson > > Around 2:58 the conversation turns to what may still be Stewart's > perspective, that at a certain level science seems to be relying on faith > about as much as religion. He cites the inability to see antimatter as > being comparable to arguments that God created everything. I don't know > that it's exactly what PGage is driving at, but I think the way some > appeals to scientific authority take shortcuts contributes to this > skepticism of the reliability of scientific information. > > For what its worth, Stewart didn't strike me at the time as willing to do > the work to check these claims, or maybe even in a position to know that > can be done. I wrote about it here (as with any 11 year old internet > thing, linkrot runs rampant in the post) - > https://pascophronesis.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/failure-in-science-communication-jon-stewart/ > > David > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021, 7:40:59 PM PDT, PGage <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Again, I really don’t think this was satire. I don’t think Stewart is an > anti-science Trumper, but I think he is genuinely worried about the dangers > he sees in science- driven elitism, and wants to set some other authority > (humanism perhaps?) above science. This is not an uncommon position among > certain kinds of liberals (e.g., those still losing sleep over genetically > modified crops). > > What we needed was a transition from his comic bit (however successful or > not it was) and at least a few minutes of serious discussion. > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 4:20 PM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: > > . > > > As I watched the Stewart rant I thought his problem is he hasn't done > standup in front of an audience for years and his performance was off. He > wasn't clear about the point he was making - I think his point was if you > say "trust the science" it doesn't mean trust only the science you agree > with. As he built his rant his beats were off and as he got up and walked > to the audience he didn't pause to see if the audience was still with him. > If he spaced the buildup more it would have come out more like satire and > less like a right wing talk radio rant. > > As for Carvey, he must be some kind of acquired taste. So many people I > respect in comedy talk about what a genius he is and every time I watch an > appearance I don't find him funny. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPx9RFoe0at7fV%2Bp%2BZ53JsjHpT4VENB1SgNgtRYi7jHdVA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPx9RFoe0at7fV%2Bp%2BZ53JsjHpT4VENB1SgNgtRYi7jHdVA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/1130392870.921541.1624152681788%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/1130392870.921541.1624152681788%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4ADOuWPd5MpFNuLv3T%2BsVpBZSLsT2ea6tv3_MYNaXWcPA%40mail.gmail.com.
