It's A Man's Cern

[cronus]

they aren't already?

Possibly.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long ... 62711.html

[Brian Peacock]

AH, but have you ever tried calling out an emergency physicist at three in the morning?

[Scot Dutchy]

Well you cant call out a plumber that's for sure.

[Strontium Dog]

I was going to suggest "Physical" by Olivia Newton-John as a jokey anthem for women in physics, and then I realised she's the granddaughter of a Nobel-winning physicist, which when I think about it, adds a whole extra layer of meaning to that song. Mind accordingly blown.

[Cunt]

Didn't the Hunt guy say more nuanced things than that?

Science is pretty unforgiving. I thought Bill Nye and David Suzuki were scientists for awhile, then realized that the real scientists publish, and are subject to the scathing criticisms of experts in their fields.

[laklak]

Bill Nye the Science Guy. Yeah, he's a mechanical engineer. Suzuki has a PhD in zoology.

[Joe]

IIRC, Hunt was joking, but not everybody liked the joke.

[rainbow]

Didn't the Hunt guy say more nuanced things than that?

Science is pretty unforgiving. I thought Bill Nye and David Suzuki were scientists for awhile, then realized that the real scientists publish, and are subject to the scathing criticisms of experts in their fields.

I've reviewed a number of papers. Scathing criticism isn't really the norm, reserved for form rather than content.
There is a code though:
"Insufficient data to back your conclusions." - You didn't really do enough work.
"Contradicts the previous study." - You didn't do the literature survey, did you?
"The level of interpretation of results needs attention" - You've not a clue what you're talking about.
"The methodology is somewhat unorthodox" - Just plain sloppy work.

[Cunt]

Didn't the Hunt guy say more nuanced things than that?

Science is pretty unforgiving. I thought Bill Nye and David Suzuki were scientists for awhile, then realized that the real scientists publish, and are subject to the scathing criticisms of experts in their fields.

I've reviewed a number of papers. Scathing criticism isn't really the norm, reserved for form rather than content.
There is a code though:
"Insufficient data to back your conclusions." - You didn't really do enough work.
"Contradicts the previous study." - You didn't do the literature survey, did you?
"The level of interpretation of results needs attention" - You've not a clue what you're talking about.
"The methodology is somewhat unorthodox" - Just plain sloppy work.

If a scientist is really invested in their work, having their betters prove it wrong can be difficult. That's why I used 'scathing' incorrectly.

[Cunt]

Bill Nye the Science Guy. Yeah, he's a mechanical engineer. Suzuki has a PhD in zoology.

Neither has published works for peer review, as far as I can tell.

Both are actors. Both use HEAPS of oil while telling everyone else to go green.

[Brian Peacock]

Neil deGrasse Tyson, scientist or fraud?

[Seabass]

Bill Nye has a BS (bachelor of science) in mechanical engineering. Mechanical engineering is basically physics. Physics is science.

Here are a few definitions of "scientist" from online dictionaries:

One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.

a person learned in science and especially natural science

a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences

I think it's fair to call him a scientist. I don't know why people are so nitpicky about Bill Nye's science bonafides.

[Cunt]

Neil deGrasse Tyson, scientist or fraud?

He could be both, but I don't know if he publishes. Science isn't reading shit...if it was, gender studies would be a science. No, science is about sticking your neck out and risking having you theory falsified.

As to Bill Nye, his training is engineering...how much of that has he done?

He is a decent actor, but aside from that...

[pErvinalia]

Oh look, another armchair expert who knows fuck all about science. Suzuki has published plenty.

https://search.library.uq.edu.au/primo- ... d&offset=0

[Cunt]

So he did some good fruit fly science...but is also a science denier.

How to square that circle...oh yeah, he makes a huge living claiming GMO's are harmful. Fossil fuel is bad, and immigrants are bad for the environment.

Suzuki said slavery and climate change are not economic issues, but moral issues. “I’m with the Pope, and as you know, I’m an atheist, but I’m willing to kiss the Pope on his feet, on his hands or anywhere else he wants me to kiss him,” Suzuki told Solomon about the Pope’s position on climate change.

So the oilsand workers are slavers...I wonder how much oil Suzuki uses in a year, producing his indoctritation crap for Pravda (CBC)...

Another place is the GMO thing. It's like buzzword bingo to find nutrition idiots. They will use words like 'gluten-free', or 'non-gmo', or 'organic' or any of a dozen other words to make their food more 'elite' and pretend they are making important choices.

Suzuki is a hack. Want a hero? Look up Norman Borlaug (the man who saved more lives than anyone who ever lived) and tell me if you would rather science-denier Suzuki or Borlaug on your side.

I'll take Borlaug, and the advancements he made to reduce suffering over Suzuki and his anti-science stance any day.

So yeah, he's published, and a scientist. He's still spreading bullshit though. Still pumping a biased message. You can tell it is biased, because it never changes.