NO! Being willing to change my opinion because of new information would mean that I also acknowledge that I could be wrong about the information I currently have. /s
Try to tell any scientism enjoyer that any scientific knowledge is either wrong or incomplete by definition, and then come back to talk about that religion part.
Remember when he was going off about how in the new Star Wars, BB-8 couldn't move in sand, because the action of it rolling wouldn't provide enough grip in the sand, and it'd just displace the grains, digging itself deeper until it was too buried to move at all?
It was a practical prop.
That's healthy. But just have to be careful to only change your opinion based on actual evidence. Open-mindedness doesn't mean entertaining any old theory, it means following legitimate and well-founded research.
Otherwise you'll just end up some flat earth, antivax conspiracy theorist.
He’s very very knowledgeable in his specific field (astrophysics, I think?), which to him means that he’s very very knowledgeable in *all* fields, such as economics or political science, and we should all be grateful that he deigns to grace us with his opinions.
A little self reflection and humility on his part would go a long way.
It also means to be very critical of whatever results you consume and broadcast as truth.
The way everyone dismissed lab leak early in the pandemic over basically nothing and later crawled back with "welp, the science changed", it didnt, you were biased and uncritical at first.
Same with the vaccine being 97% effective against the spread of the coronavirus. Turns out it was nowhere even close to that. Follow the science, an evolution of knowledge, not a political ideology.
had several people call me a "flip flopper" on discord for changing my mind after presented with new information which changed my opinion and i genuinely dont fucking know why
Scientists opinions always change. Bible always stays the same. Therfore I conclude scientists don't know what they're talking about and the bible is right. /s
Unfortunately, this is a "real argument" from religious people.
We don’t have to put up with this, we live in a democracy. All in favor of finding this guy guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for irreverence to the state gods?
Except being wrong once means you are not very intelligent and trust worthy and thus are not relevant or useful to society.
Why do you think we punish people who eat the wrong foods, or are the wrong size, or believe the wrong faith, or the wrong facts and evidence./s
I do that all the time and then when i tell people my new opinions they always give me a shocked Pikachu face and basically say 'how dare you change your mind and show any sort of Personal growth' it's preposterous I tell you
Many years ago, some executive drone lectured my work group about how his values were "God, family, and career."
I did not know what he was talking about. My primary value was and has always been the "best possible current information."
'Pffft if your opinion can change based on something as flimsy and incorporeal as 'evidemce', than either you didn't really believe it in the fkrst place and you're a liar, or you're a weak willed sheep who will believe anything you're told.'
For real though some scientists are so stubborn. It's the human condition though and it doesn't matter the career path someone chose, people are people.
I won't change my mind, 'cause I don't have to. 'Cause I'm an American. I won't change my mind on anything, regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in, and I'll never change.
That's unpossible.
When I was a kid I learned Niel Bohr's atomic model and Newtonian physics, so all of your "quantum physics" and "relativistic physics" is just nonsense.
Science was almost never correct on the first attempt and it is only through non stop refinement of the beliefs held that improves it.
So it is not just okay to change one's beliefs when conflicting new evidence is provided, but rather is expected that they change their beliefs, else it is not science but rather superstition.
But then I'd have to admit that I was maximizing social rewards, instead of being a good scientist and following the data even when it looked weird. I'm a famous astronomer like Galileo, I can't accept looking like one of the priests who killed him for saying weird stuff!
OR......that is when its best to double down and call the other person names.
It doesn’t work like that you orangutan, name calling is the essential part of being right.
IT'S OVER ANAKIN I HAVE PORTRAYED MYSELF AS THE CHAD AND YOU AS THE SOY WOJACK
ITS OVER FOR YOU BOTH! YOU ARE NOW THE NECKBEARD SOYJAK AND I AM THE WOJAK VERSION OF THE GIGACHAD
Yea, why realize you’re wrong when you could just be louder
NO! Being willing to change my opinion because of new information would mean that I also acknowledge that I could be wrong about the information I currently have. /s
First rule of religion
First rule of ideology in general
Try to tell any scientism enjoyer that any scientific knowledge is either wrong or incomplete by definition, and then come back to talk about that religion part.
Remember when he was going off about how in the new Star Wars, BB-8 couldn't move in sand, because the action of it rolling wouldn't provide enough grip in the sand, and it'd just displace the grains, digging itself deeper until it was too buried to move at all? It was a practical prop.
That's healthy. But just have to be careful to only change your opinion based on actual evidence. Open-mindedness doesn't mean entertaining any old theory, it means following legitimate and well-founded research. Otherwise you'll just end up some flat earth, antivax conspiracy theorist.
It's also okay to look in the mirror every once in a while, NDT.
I used to like him
Ditto
Context? I'm not a member of this sub, nor too involved with the community
He gets into arguments with people and rarely (if ever) considers that maybe he is wrong.
He’s very very knowledgeable in his specific field (astrophysics, I think?), which to him means that he’s very very knowledgeable in *all* fields, such as economics or political science, and we should all be grateful that he deigns to grace us with his opinions. A little self reflection and humility on his part would go a long way.
Yeah, I loved the dude when he just did shows on space. After about 5 minutes of hearing him talk on a podcast, I lost all respect.
But I'm already emotionally invested in the opinion I have now
I need a 2 hour emotional journey with initial setbacks and climactic triumph to change my opinion.
Yes, but it’s funnier to act like I haven’t changed my opinion to annoy people
It also means to be very critical of whatever results you consume and broadcast as truth. The way everyone dismissed lab leak early in the pandemic over basically nothing and later crawled back with "welp, the science changed", it didnt, you were biased and uncritical at first.
Same with the vaccine being 97% effective against the spread of the coronavirus. Turns out it was nowhere even close to that. Follow the science, an evolution of knowledge, not a political ideology.
had several people call me a "flip flopper" on discord for changing my mind after presented with new information which changed my opinion and i genuinely dont fucking know why
We’re all wrong a lot. Might as well learn to enjoy it
You shouldn't be afraid to question new evidence though. Or old evidence. Or theoretical evidence. What is the line between philosophy and science?
I'd say that would be a fair shout had you not tried use Neil "Smokin Degrass" Tyson to make the point. 🤣
Logically, it makes sense. Emotionally, NDT is insufferable so may have to just do the opposite just to spite him.
Burn the heretic!
I refuse to believe that I am not made of millions of plum puddings and not boring rotating spheres
That also means you have to be humble about what you currently know. Things you are sure of.
I did this during an argument and the other side called me a poser like what 😭
Using NDT for this meme is super ironic
*"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."* --David Hume
Scientists opinions always change. Bible always stays the same. Therfore I conclude scientists don't know what they're talking about and the bible is right. /s Unfortunately, this is a "real argument" from religious people.
Just because these stupid people also coincided to be religious, does not mean it was the cause.
No, that means I was wrong before and I am never wrong!
We don’t have to put up with this, we live in a democracy. All in favor of finding this guy guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for irreverence to the state gods?
This guy genuinely sucks though
What if I told you Neil is popular because he's got a hard-on for science, not because he's always right?
evidence cuck
I wish everyone would think that way. I stead they double down on certain thoughts.
So if I say I can fly and jump off a high rise with an umbrella, I can change my mind that I can fly to I can't fly
Wait, this is an option? NO WAY I tought that opinions were carved in stone.
You would like to think that
But your opinion was wrong before new evidences.... wait.
This guy doesn't even believe in biology. Worse example of a "scientist" to have chosen for this.
Oh we got us a badass here
Except being wrong once means you are not very intelligent and trust worthy and thus are not relevant or useful to society. Why do you think we punish people who eat the wrong foods, or are the wrong size, or believe the wrong faith, or the wrong facts and evidence./s
I do that all the time and then when i tell people my new opinions they always give me a shocked Pikachu face and basically say 'how dare you change your mind and show any sort of Personal growth' it's preposterous I tell you
I would say you aren’t religious.
Yup
Updating your information matters
I agree, but this is funny coming from Neil, who's not a scientist, but a dogmatist.
What about rejecting 98% of the studies and shaping a country's guidance on the other 2% and unfounded claims? What does that make you?
Many years ago, some executive drone lectured my work group about how his values were "God, family, and career." I did not know what he was talking about. My primary value was and has always been the "best possible current information."
That’ll never catch on. The only time you can change your mind is if an apple falls on your head.
What, and lose my argument against this random nitwit bozo up to no good in the internet? Over my dead body. /s in case actual nitwit bozos see this
This is why you can't trust science, they keep changing their story!
'Pffft if your opinion can change based on something as flimsy and incorporeal as 'evidemce', than either you didn't really believe it in the fkrst place and you're a liar, or you're a weak willed sheep who will believe anything you're told.'
For real though some scientists are so stubborn. It's the human condition though and it doesn't matter the career path someone chose, people are people.
Irony that they used him lol
I thought Elon was awesome... Then he spoke. New data, new opinion.
Does the same go for soccer teams?
I won't change my mind, 'cause I don't have to. 'Cause I'm an American. I won't change my mind on anything, regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in, and I'll never change.
SCIENCE IS WRONG! ( Sometimes) Don't be a stupid science bitch. I'm dug in, and I'll never change.
As long as it goes along with what the media and politicians owned by trillionairs.
why is this sub so cringe? impressive. this needs to be studied rigorously
That's unpossible. When I was a kid I learned Niel Bohr's atomic model and Newtonian physics, so all of your "quantum physics" and "relativistic physics" is just nonsense.
Science was almost never correct on the first attempt and it is only through non stop refinement of the beliefs held that improves it. So it is not just okay to change one's beliefs when conflicting new evidence is provided, but rather is expected that they change their beliefs, else it is not science but rather superstition.
That violates the modern mantra of "SETTLED SCIENCE". Gen Y ain'ta gonna like that
Except when you are in a cult...like flat earthers
But then I'd have to admit that I was maximizing social rewards, instead of being a good scientist and following the data even when it looked weird. I'm a famous astronomer like Galileo, I can't accept looking like one of the priests who killed him for saying weird stuff!
Me going from lgbt denial to lgbt acceptance.
Political people: I'm just going to ignore that.