Radio broadcaster Robin Williams, presenter of the Science Show program on the Australian ABC network, told the website of the scientist at a meeting held at the Academy of Sciences that he held a tribute program to the global warming deniers in which he brought researchers testifying that the death was a conspiracy of doctors who want research budgets
"In light of all the attacks on science, I decided to give those who demand it what they want." In response to a question from the scientist website, Robin Williams, the presenter of the Science Show radio program for 35 years, said that if you cannot prove warming and evolution, you cannot prove anything, for example the existence of death.
"I interviewed Freeman Dyson and he claimed that the claims about the existence of death are nonsense. A medical expert explained that doctors spread these lies to get research budgets and therefore they trick you into thinking that death exists. Another respected interviewee explained that you cannot say that someone is gone. They may smell a bit strange, that they have just changed, that they are in a different country, in a different dimension... The problem with global warming deniers or evolution deniers is that whatever level of evidence you give them is not enough. There is no 100% certainty in any scientific statement, not even in mathematics. Even the value of the euro changes."
"I don't really know how to deal with such people, but I have a short list that explains why science is important for democracy: it is fun, it tells you who you are and who you are not, and most importantly for governments - it makes it possible to make a lot of money, besides it also saves the world."
"The integrity (Credibility) of science is under a huge attack by various parties who try to tattoo the foundations of science because the scientific findings do not correspond to a religious, economic or other agenda." Williams said in a meeting with Israeli science journalists that took place at the offices of the National Academy of Sciences during his visit in October 2010. The visit was made possible thanks to Leon Fink, a donor to the Hebrew University, during which Williams, with the assistance of Prof. Hanoch Guttfreund, interviewed 19 researchers who also know how to explain their science to the general public.
Among other things, Williams listed the areas in which scientists are simply not believed: global warming, evolution, genetic engineering in plants, cloning, embryonic stem cells.
Williams, born in Wales and a graduate of the University of London, immigrated to Australia and since 1972 he has been working in the division he currently manages. In 1975, he began broadcasting the award-winning Science Show, an hour-long science interview program.
"1972 was a particularly strange time for young people because at that stage we were still walking on the moon - in Apollo 16 and 17, it was part of the coverage I was trained in and I remember doing research on it. I was asked to explain live what the astronauts do. I was asked why the devices are wrapped in aluminum foil. I didn't know how to answer."
"In the early seventies, my reporting style was not that of a cheerleader. We did critical things. My colleague Norman Sven broke 3 careers of scientists who turned out to have cheated and it was discovered by the program. We did investigations but also pulled pranks, for example about a cave bear that was allegedly found in Australia 10 million years ago... I reported on the birth of Princess Diana's child three months before the actual event. Commentary on frozen embryos. We didn't think we had to be fans of science."
"But we found that science is under attack. Especially in the English speaking countries in the last two years. It's not just climate science, genetic engineering, but all science has become illegitimate. Today it is very easy to do such campaigns thanks to the Internet. At a time when science is exposed on blogs and websites where anyone can say anything and anyone can say that their opinion is as good as any professor's, ask Lawrence Krauss, who recently wrote an article in Scientific American under the title "War is Peace". "When I see repeated messages according to which Stephen Hawking would have died today if he lived in the UK, and was dependent on the state health system (of course, he works and operates in the UK, where he always has been) I am reminded of something I wrote about 12 years ago in one of the first comments I published. The blatant nature of the nonsense being spread and inciting the public is chilling. Our democratic society is in more danger from this than any single threat, regardless of whether the sources of this nonsense are religious fanaticism, simple ignorance or personal gain.”
Nature recently published an editorial on the state of climate science “Climate scientists are under attack driven by a vigorous community of global warming deniers who, by controlling the media agenda, are sowing doubt about basic science. Most researchers find themselves off their turf in a sort of street fight because they are only superficially scientific. The real goal is to store all the anger that has accumulated in radio shows, cable news and the blogosphere, and prepare the infrastructure for evaluating facts and weighing evidence, when politeness, honesty, facts and perspective are irrelevant."
The Royal Society - British Academy of Sciences recently published a document detailing the scientific position on climate change, and surprisingly, although there was no change in the position that there is man-made warming, Rupert Murdoch's newspapers claimed, as if the academy had softened its position. In light of this, the Academy issued a letter in which it stated: "News LTD (Murdoch's media network), claims that the Royal Society's brief 'conjured up many of the claims about an impending ecological disaster that were created with the intention of garnering public support for political activity to deal with climate change.'
Vice President of the Royal Society John Petika said that the claim that the leading scientific body has changed its position is simply not true." In a letter to "The Australian" newspaper, Prof. Patika writes that nothing has changed - there was no greater uncertainty about the future increase in temperature today than on previous occasions. "The science remains as it was, as well as uncertainties - as anyone who reads documents can see."
Williams cited an article from Science that dealt with a new book, "Merchants of Doubt: How Several Scientists Distorted the Truth About Issues From Cigarette Smoking to Global Warming" by Naomi Orseks and Eric Conway.
"A tiny minority of people who are not qualified in the field manage to dominate every discussion. By sowing doubt, they put pressure on the editors and demand that, in the name of "balance", their propaganda should be given equal weight to the hard work of independent scientists. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals are routinely dismissed by skeptics as "junk science". Corruption and fabrication of facts replaced science.
As the authors of the book explained, the opponents are far-right ideologues who cut their teeth in the Cold War. When the Soviet bloc collapsed, they looked for a new threat to the free world and found it in the environmental movement. They compared it to a watermelon: green on the outside and red on the inside. For them, regulations are the enemy of the free market, the slippery slope towards socialism, which must be stopped at all costs. For this reason they are willing to compromise with lung cancer and all the diseases caused by climate change and to blacken the name of any scientist whose work may harm their interest. Even today, if they can show that banning the use of DDT caused more problems than it created, they will prove that regulation doesn't work. Ersax and Conway exposed the lie.”
"This is the situation where our role has changed from just visitors to explainers of science, because the technology has changed, because the political situation has changed. I don't do pranks anymore. "
26 תגובות
Billions of bacteria live in my body, knowing very well that I can destroy them if I take antibiotics. For them my body is their world - a space whose dimensions are unfathomable. For them I am God, and they pray to me at least 3 times a day that I will not take antibiotics.
In recent years, they have split into different classes, each of which believes that my ears are called only to its prayers. From time to time a war breaks out between them, and then I take antibiotics and kill several billions, so they can see.
I am God.
There is no scientific proof for the existence of God!!!
But God also created science (because He creates everything) so if there is no such scientific proof, God is probably somehow preventing such proof from reaching us. If he prevents such proof from reaching us and we who trust science are unable to prove that he exists, does that mean he is gone? Of course not, the existence of God cannot be denied scientifically because we have not been able to confirm his existence scientifically. Hence God is probably Preminger's cat...
It was written on Friday evening and may I be forgiven by that compassionate and nerd who sits on high, who sat on the sidelines and let six million Jews have a million children murdered. So is he compassionate and kind or is it just us in our stupidity and smallness who do not understand his actions? So my God, is there such a thing as God??? And if there is such a thing, should he be worshiped after he sat on the sidelines during the Holocaust??? Perhaps those who practice it do so for completely egoistic reasons: they simply want to secure their place in the next world...
Eyal A:
First of all - in relation to the comments here - it seems to me that usually (even in the current discussion) they are sane comments.
There are indeed some trolls who have not yet realized that their attack on science always ends in exposing the nakedness of their religion (if it is the Jewish religion and if it is the conspiracy religion) but most of the commenters here are rational people and most of the irrational commenters have already realized that they should keep quiet.
Regarding your "wave theory" - it is actually a tautology - that is - something that is mathematically bound by reality.
If you remove the possibility of stagnation on the yeast, then it always ends in a decline and a decline ends in an increase. Ups and downs have no other way to end. If you don't say anything about the duration of the rise or the duration of the descent, you haven't actually said anything.
I think that today the vast majority of humanity believes in the importance of science and its usefulness.
Those who disagree with this are a minority. Although extremely vocal, but still a minority.
The situation in specific sciences (such as evolution) is a bit more complex - because of the opposition that has religious origins, but religions can destroy human culture even without any connection to science.
If human culture is destroyed, the return to today's situation will take so long that it is hard to believe that the lessons of the past will prevent repeated deterioration.
For the 17 chances (if only for the purpose of the matter), that there will actually be intelligent life
On our planet there are indeed small ones, but that is not the question. One question is, what
The chances of it happening somewhere in the universe; Where we are today, creative
The case is called a "country" - if you look at the question like that, the chances will increase wonderfully.
The second question is, what are the chances that intelligent life will arise in any way
Otherwise - these are the two that determine the correctness of the theory of evolution in my eyes.
To Michael Rothschild (20) I think he meant that a response
14 (mine) is really, really good (comment ten...) 🙂
Michael, what do you say about the following idea (I am turning to you because from the responses here I feel in a tiny and helpless minority):
Most people today are not intelligent enough to break free from the shackles of faith. They do not have a realistic enough head, one that criticizes but is not caught up in dogmas (prejudices for example). In short, they do not "connect" to science. These are most people.
Today, thanks to science, those people have a platform. The ability to spread information around the world (internet) is such that they are able, due to their numbers, to drown in mizolas any sober opinion spoken by real scientists. And they don't necessarily do it on purpose. It's just that they are many in number, and they also have a "big mouth". Good at talking and do it a lot.
Now I say, almost every system you define if not every system in nature, behaves in one sense or another cyclically; with waves; There are ups followed by downs followed by ups again.
So let's just say that we, humanity, are simply in decline. At some point a collapse will come and if humanity is not destroyed, and something remains, remnants of devices, stories about the Internet and computers and cars, and also real knowledge in those who preserved it, maybe even books, then the awakening will come and it will rise again with lessons from the past that will be passed on from generation to generation until they reach the level again of today..
I know it sounds a little gloomy and pessimistic, but that's still how it feels. There is a minuscule, almost zero percentage of people out of all of humanity who are scientists and engineers, and on this tip that tries to lift them all up there hangs a huge, heavy fabric that pulls it down.
Well already.
What interests me is how religious Israelis who work and are not poor can already know what will be written in response 24 🙂
The mathematics = the mathematics
Dissenters can arise who will seal the dinosaur skeletons, plant,... maybe... there is evidence that this is not the case. But we can discuss it...
Opponents can arise who say that the evidence for genes and genetic inheritance is far-fetched and unreliable... maybe... there is evidence that this is not so... but...
Opponents can arise who say that there is no evidence that there is no idea of the ability of a developmental "jump" - meaning that an organ suddenly develops... maybe... there is evidence that this is not the case... but...
When discussing it like this, one must open books and the evidence and discuss what the eyes and the instruments see... and check
My problem with most opponents of evolution is that they attack the very validity of the mathematics of evolution, and then the discussion is stupid.
Like the story about the Greek and the tortoise, the Greek said I am faster than the tortoise, the tortoise thought and said prove to me, said eating, because if A leads to B and given A then B, if all people are faster than tortoises and I am a man and you are a tortoise, then I am faster than you,
said the turtle in which rule C is established which says that A leads to B and given A then B, if you prove C then I will agree with you
June season ……. Because if A leads to B and given A then B then C must be true,
Tzev Uri answers rule D is established which says that if A leads to B and given A then B then C must be true, if you prove D to me I will agree with you...
Like this and so on..
This is the debate about the mathematical logic of evolution with most of its opponents...
The celebration is over:
I suggest separating the recommendations of scientists, which can definitely be wrong, biased and even charlatan, and science in general, which usually works (see the laptop you mentioned and even the science that accompanies genetic engineering)
And among the speculative theories that accompany science, the genetic theory of heredity and heredity is a theory that, in my opinion, is quite proven, but it has data whose meaning can be debated...
But the mathematics of evolution is certain at the level that all mathematics suggests, like 1 = 1 and like the Pythagorean theorem. Mathematics says that given a group of objects with properties, the properties affect the ability of the object to survive in the environmental conditions in which it is the animal that is able to reproduce and in the process of reproduction there is imperfect copying (sometimes mutations)...*** there is evolution,****
It could be in the economy, only stores that earn enough to survive, survive and it could be in the "game of life on the computer"...
The data of the theory, on the other hand, talks about extinct creatures, about variation about genetics and mutations about the way of survival.. and the theory is very complex but in my opinion sits firmly on the data... and it presents reality as matching the basic conditions of the mathematics I mentioned (provided....)
The interpretation of the meaning and even the data can be debated, but the mathematics of evolution is a proven theorem.. logical.. and clear (even for the opponents, they use it every day in any case that they use in a consumer revolt (for example against stores that sell on Shabbat, and they create a situation where the stores or who survive the situation or die (shut down) or who change the intention of working on their Shabbat and thus create a mutation...
Before arguing, it is advisable to decide what you are arguing about...
For commenter 24:
Your response is not angry like others, but learned and worthy of an answer:
All the things you said are not proof of the (=theoretical) theory of evolution. This is just a description of the scientific method. But the scientific method does not prove theories but confirms them. The theory of evolution does receive many confirmations.
The theory of the existence of the electron also receives many confirmations. And it is never proven either. There is no evidence in science.
In any case, the electron theory can in principle be disproved by conducting an experiment in which the predictions of the theory will not be realized. It hasn't happened for many years, so in everyday conversation we accept the existence of the electron as a fact. The theory of evolution cannot be disproved. She has no prediction, and every find they discover, including a rabbit in the dinosaur layer, can be explained.
If anything, the theory of evolution raises a serious difficulty: the chances of this process producing intelligent life within 4.5 billion years (the age of the Earth) do not look good. I'm no longer talking about the fact that a lot of things have to be exactly where they happen to be in order for it to even be possible and not just with zero probability.
I don't know if there is intelligent planning. That's not the point. The point is that the theory of evolution is not proven but a theory. Those whose difficulties she raises cause him to doubt her do not deserve to remain silent. An ideological dictatorship is a bad thing.
After listening to Professor Nir Shabib (who actually thinks that we should act for a better future, against air pollution, etc.) you realize that certain scientists use science to make angry prophecies about things they have no idea if they are true or not.
to someone else entirely
How much can you try to impress and come off as a complete idiot? Some ?
Kennedy's murder, for example - it's official, there's a conspiracy here
Kennedy Assassination House Committee on Assassinations Conclude JFK and MLK Conspiracies 12 30 1978
Watch an excerpt from the news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHNQdL9eImM
Rabin's murder - there is an X-ray of him with a bullet entering the chest while Shigal Amir allegedly shot from behind
Please turn on Occam
There are three separate and good ways to prove evolution:
1. Occam's razor. A logical method used by scientists
And (without being aware of all human beings) and states that when there is
Two explanations for the same phenomenon should be chosen
The simpler explanation (the one with fewer assumptions).
That is: or we are chosen by the way of evolution, choice
which means that we assume that missing matter can
can replicate itself under certain conditions and gradually transform
for living matter. Or we accept the "intelligent design" and assume
that there is an external entity that can plan and create life
And thus we get the whole set of assumptions we made
Regarding our kimono - and many more additional discounts.
2. Evolution is closely related to at least three sciences
Geology, paleontology and radiology (carbon dating),
Those who claim that evolution is not true should also be thrown out
the other three sciences (and this is just the beginning..).
3. It is a fact that more than 99 percent of the animal species
who lived on the face of the planet became extinct. If there was any planning here
After all, the tiny percentage of success is more like a child's Lego design
Not very smart.
—-:)
You will not be able to convince me of the intentions of "intelligent planning".
Nice response #3 (Luke). In any case, book publishers on
Conspiracy theorists make a lot of money selling bullshit
For the fools who are interested in confirming their righteousness, starting with the Kennedy murder, the Rabin murder,
And denying the holocaust and ending with evolution and global warming.
Everything is money and attempts to prove what is not true.
The problem is that the glass of the websites for their shares is often distorted and not magnified....
Monesto's monopoly needs to be fought, but did you read just a week or two ago (unfortunately I didn't have time to deal with it) that we are already consuming half of the Earth's resources? Not only Monsto says that there is a lack of food, also many important others who are not biased.
Father, don't put words in my mouth - science is not a curse
I use a laptop product of science and it is a blessing
But the use of false science to push corrupt agendas such as genetically modified food under the pretense that there is not enough food
This is a lie, it is related to the Monsanto corporation's monopoly on food, which controls 90 percent of the genetically engineered seeds.
If you want to increase output, there are scientific technologies that benefit us and are not dangerous, such as
sea-crop
Asaf,
When you say "evolution" without an addition, it is of course a process, but there is a "theory of evolution", the explanatory system of the process, and people of all levels of education use both forms indiscriminately.
Ron, the one taking LSD is you, living in an imaginary world where science is a curse. Do yourself a favor, go find another truth, where you can write what you want and no one will criticize you for your nonsense.
The party was over
Everything goes under a magnifying glass - this is exactly the scientific mechanism.
Obviously, there are many inaccuracies in science, and the ones who discover them are scientists,
Not ignorant like you and like a working religious Jew who know how to slander without knowledge and without basis.
A religious Israeli who works and is not poor:
Science is attacked, by fundamentalists in religions, and by yeshiva priests who study chewing gum.
Evolution is a theory, not a doctrine.
Torah is Judaism or the doctrine of warfare,
A series of dictates do so and so or he will swallow you, while
A theory is an explanatory system about the phenomena of the world, which does not require doing anything.
And there are possibilities to try to disprove the theory of evolution, but all attempts have failed so far, while the "chance of realization is zero" is a religious mantra without any foundation.
There used to be only Channel 1 and we would buy anything they told us.
But that's the end of the celebration
Today, with the abundance of information, scientists are not saints, doctors are not saints - and what they say is transmitted under a magnifying glass.
and better this way
Examples:
Information that was confidential for 8 years and was revealed by court order - transgenic potatoes cause cancer.
Look for
Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes
Autism vaccine context
Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientist at the British Ministry of Health speaks
Look for
Former UK Science Chief — Vaccines Cause Autism: "What More Evidence is Needed?"
The charlatanism of anthropogenic global warming
Read the resignation letter of a well-known professor from the American Physical Society
Look for
The global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it... has corrupted so many scientists"
Evolution Evolution - take a little trip with L.S.D. And look what nonsense it is to say that we are the common descendants of a banana, a trip of ketamine - and boom you are out of your body, no wonder the youth does not swallow the nonsense of evolution
Science is not under attack - the abominable corruption of the scientists is under attack the charlatan materialistic ideology is under attack
Gentlemen who comment, I have already written before and yet again:
Evolution is not a doctrine, evolution is a process/fact,
There are teachings, ideas and theories with the help of which they try (and succeed) to explain
how the process takes place,
Just like there are theories that explain why our sphere is round,
or how life was created,
Therefore, treating evolution as a Torah is equivalent to treatment
to our round ball or life... as a theory,
A theory can be contradicted or refuted,
Facts cannot be refuted!
A religious Israeli who works is not poor, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory and it can be disproved, but they have not succeeded in this yet.
It is enough that you find a fossil of a rabbit in a layer of soil from the time of the dinosaurs and you succeeded in disproving evolution.
So far no such fossil has been found.
The cynicism of this site calls into question its scientificity.
Science is not under attack, it's nonsense, just not everything a scientist says is sacred.
The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory is not certain and that's okay. The problem with evolution is that other scientific theories are disprovable, while the theory of evolution is not. This puts her in doubt, and the doubt only grows because of the zero chances of realizing this process.
Everything is money