Topic: Bill O'Reilly: giant troll or complete moron?

[idolminds]

Probably both.

Someone want to send him a 5th grade science book?

Also, it's Dr. Hawking.

[gpw11]

Actually, I like how he handled that.  I'm by no means a theist, but I respect his "believe what you want" attitude far more than someone like Richard Dawkins. End of the day, who gives a fuck what the guy next to you buys into?

[idolminds]

You can have your own opinion, but you cant have your own facts. We know exactly why we have tides and why it appears the sin rises and sets. We also have a fairly damn good explanation for the formation of the earth itself.

I also go with "believe what you want", but these are things we know. No belief required.

[gpw11]

Well, I'm assuming he's getting at the traditional philosophical argument for agnosticism.  As you dig deeper and get further removed what the here and now, scientific explanations become more theoretical and abstract to the point that at a sub-quantum level few understand the mechanics and no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that something hasn't been misinterpreted.  The conclusion being that for 99.99% of the population, it takes just as much (well, actually less, but the existence of any faith outside of actually "knowing" is all that matters) outside faith to believe that at the time of the big bang the universe was full of energy at an incomprehensibly high temperature which inevitably led to everything we know today as it does to just believe something we don't understand just thought it all up. And the .01 could easily be on the wrong track because of a false presumption somewhere around the way.

Of course, I'm probably giving him too much credit and assuming when he says "how the planet got here" he means "how the matter making up the planet came into existence" rather than how the planet was actually formed. What it comes down to is that all science is incomplete and always really will be.

[Cobra951]

When we try to understand everything that has led to our existence, we fail.  It can't be done.  But clearly our existence happened.  The trap is thinking that it's possible to understand it all.  It isn't.  The trick is accepting our limited perception and ability to comprehend.  We can chip away at mysteries logically and empirically.  Such work is rewarded with better methods of using and controlling our surroundings.  It provides glimpses into the workings of reality.  It will never give us absolute knowledge.  We must accept that we will never know everything.  We will go to our graves not knowing, individually, and as a race.

Anything else is blind belief in some mystical dogma.  I have no issue with those who choose such a path as long as they don't take issue with mine.

[Xessive]

I've never truly understood the conflict between science and religion. In my case science doesn't conflict with my religious beliefs; especially since much of both are theories or theologies.

[shock]

His questions at the beginning were terrible (umm, we've known what has causes the tides for a loooong time), but I do agree with the latter point of the video; Atheism and theism both require leaps of faith.  Pick your poison.

[idolminds]

Rejecting ideas for lack of evidence does not require faith.

[Quemaqua]

Accepting ideas with a lack of evidence does.  Scientific theory is just theory, and given how often science thinks one thing is likely then goes entirely in the other direction after further research, be careful how much credit you give conjecture.

[idolminds]

Of course, that has nothing to do with atheism.

And yes, scientific theories should always be taken with a grain of salt. New information might come along to change and update certain theories but what we currently have for a lot of things is still pretty close to true. Science isn't just black and white, true or false. Its a sliding scale of how much we know.

We've at least got tides and the "motion" of the sun figured out.

[Cobra951]

Scientific theories are always under the gun.  The longer they survive the endless empirical onslaught, the more probable it is that they are correct.

Science does not prove.  It merely disproves.  It took centuries to push Newtonian physics off the pedestal of perfection.  Yet it happened nonetheless.

Let's not mix science with its diametrical opposite, faith.  Please.

[sirean_syan]

My problem with this whole thing is that it is no longer just about big questions like the origins of the universe or how life arrived at the state that we see today. The fight from a lot of people has also moved onto more obtainable things tides as O'Reilly mentions or even the joke about how magnets work. There's a considerable movement against educating oneself in science at all levels that has taken hold recently that pretty terrifying. I know this isn't the first time a movement like that has gained some momentum, but it feels like there are a lot of high level people with considerable sway in public opinion that support it this time around. That's scary.

About the clip itself, it was like O'Reilly had disdain for Hawking. That's just sad and speaks volumes about what him and his followers think about people trying to understand how the world works outside of religion. I guess I can understand not exactly being a huge fan of what he represents, but to disregard the man himself so easily is kind of lame ("if he would come on the show himself and defend himself....") .

[Cools!]

Gah, O'Reilly is an idiot.

Have you guys seen him when he was on the View? It's hilarious.

[Cobra951]

It amazes me that people who go around in internal-combustion, computer-regulated automobiles, from their automatically heated and cooled homes full of electronic audiovisual entertainment to their teleconferencing jobs in glass towers have no clue about the overwhelming significance of science to the human race.  They can't even tell the difference between true science and mystical bullshit peddled as science.  Scary is one way to put it.  Enraging is another. 

[gpw11]

 Yeah, but why really care? They're only really doing themselves a disservice.  I mean, it's not like anyone on the verge of a breakthrough is going to all of a sudden give up because some Tea Party fuckwit is waving a sign.

Oh, also, science is for fags.   Real men don't give a shit how stuff works.

[Xessive]

O'Reilly generally irritates me. Maybe it's what he says mixed with the way he speaks. It just begs me to ignore him.

Anyway, when it comes to science, while I'd like to say that it is about proof, the truth is that a lot of it is about faith. I've never actually seen an atom but I believe they're there based on credible sources who say they exist. Taken further, we have no evidence that alternate universes exist but I'm open to the possibility.  I'm not a physicist, I wouldn't know much of this stuff so I'm relying on physicists to keep me informed, which is in a sense a leap of faith.

[Cobra951]

Yeah, but why really care? They're only really doing themselves a disservice.  I mean, it's not like anyone on the verge of a breakthrough is going to all of a sudden give up because some Tea Party fuckwit is waving a sign.

Oh, also, science is for fags.   Real men don't give a shit how stuff works.

I think you underestimate the power of masses of brainwashed automatons.  That's where scary comes in.

Edit:

O'Reilly generally irritates me. Maybe it's what he says mixed with the way he speaks. It just begs me to ignore him.

Anyway, when it comes to science, while I'd like to say that it is about proof, the truth is that a lot of it is about faith. I've never actually seen an atom but I believe they're there based on credible sources who say they exist. Taken further, we have no evidence that alternate universes exist but I'm open to the possibility.  I'm not a physicist, I wouldn't know much of this stuff so I'm relying on physicists to keep me informed, which is in a sense a leap of faith.

OK, let's take the example of the atom.  Theories backed by research led to more theories backed by research until it was confidently determined that matter is composed of atoms.  Everyone had this picture of miniature solar systems in unimaginable numbers making up everything.  Later came further insight into the composition of atoms, which got into all the subatomic particles, quantum states, and crap I barely understand.  The picture now looks nothing like solid little spheres orbiting other solid little spheres.  Is that the final word on the subject?  Hardly.  The whole concept will continue to evolve as more is discovered.  Faith has nothing to do with it.  The moment faith comes in, the science has been corrupted by human frailty.  Pure science is independent of all belief.  It's very hard to achieve because of our overwhelming tendency toward preconception.