The underlying message here is that science does not have a political bias. For every conservative that doesn't believe in evolution or man made climate change, there is a liberal person who believes that marijuana cures cancer or that GMO's are evil. If anything, this should serve as a reminder that facts do not exist to strengthen our views, but to improve them by forcing the whole political spectrum to think critically, analyze data, and gather evidence before we reach our conclusions, not after.
When I was in college most of my fellow science students seemed to be either politically conservative or apolitical. I didn't know anyone who was politically active in any way. And,we never talked about politics much, we talked about math and science. Personally, I think that a lot people that are interested in science are apolitical.
@@Omoiyari23 believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
You should check out what the left is doing to STEM. Look at Math 45 Harvard. It's taking over the country & we are doomed. China & the world will soon dominat us if everyone is dumbed down & smartest students are vilified & held back.
It's one extreme or the other. Remember when politicians would get together and have a drink and a cigar to talk these over like civilized grown ups and come to a reasonable compromise? I tend to lean right, especially nowadays, but both sides have good values and points that should be heard and considered by the other. Unfortunately, it seems compromise is dead, and politicians have resorted to a very childish way of dealing with each other and important issues.
Im a pretty mid left guy, but I can totally agree with this. Both parties do have good points, so why can't we have civil discussions instead of toddler fights. I'm not gonna pin the blame on anyone, they all just act childish. Its rediculous. No matter what party you support, compromise will always yield the best results. Just because something gets done. And I think compromise actually would help keep parties in power, and ensure all citizens get represented.
The problem is that America was founded to be a Right Wing, Classical liberal country where everybody has social, religious and financial liberty; this is undeniable, as it's written into our Constitution, and no matter how politicians have swindled things and used loopholes throughout the years in order to get more money and taxes from the people, this has always been the basis of America. Democrats like JFK and the "Blue Dog Democrats" back then were not like the European-style Social Democrats we see nowadays; they were much more moderate and respected the basics of America, while also wanting to create a safety net for people going through a hard time. They were not trying to create a welfare state. Socialist Leftists, however, hijacked the Democratic party under the guise of being "liberals" (which they totally were not) ever since Kennedy was assassinated and now want to fundamentally change the basics of this country and move toward a descent into Nanny State Marxism. Nowadays, the Republicans, while still having some flaws and small remnants of the Religious Right of the 70s and 80s, at least respect the basic tenets of America; don't overtax us in order to pay for other people. The Democrats do not respect these, and instead seek to alter out country's basic ideals. It's impossible to compromise with people who want to change our country on such a fundamental basis. When the argument was about the level of social support and welfare was the main debate, compromise was easy to come by, but when they want to give the government control over the biggest economies in the world, energy, education, technology and healthcare, they've turned their backs on America.
+TheGr8one1022 I like how you jumped in here with the lefties are bad argument and a false narrative about American history. You should inform yourself about what left wing and right wing actually stand for. Left wing emphasizes egalitarian principles. Right wing natural order and hierarchies. Principals such as equal rights under the law, free speech, religious freedom, due process and many others are left wing concepts because they emphasize equality under the law. Classical liberalism tends to be socially left wing but economically right wing. It acknowledges government oppression while ignoring potential private economic oppressions. That's where social liberalism and the policies pushed during the New Deal era come in. Neither liberalism nor conservatism are entirely left or right wing and no ideology ever should be. As the first two posters put it, both ideological wings are necessary for a balanced healthy society and neither should be ignored nor dismissed.
@@ilikeme1234 believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
@@olumorganjoe Please don't be the crazy type of republican. I am also a republican but also an atheist, and it's just, shoving bible scriptures down anyone's throat won't suddenly convert them to Christianity.
GoThermonukular + I agree. In fact, my skepticism makes me very independent. I'd rather be objective about all sides, than to blindly align or enjoin myself foolishly to any one side. Great
@@akindelebankole8080 believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
@@olumorganjoe Thank you kindly for the offer. Unfortunately, it is not one that I can even pretend to accept for a few reasons. 1) It is not possible for me to be a blood Christian because I'm not European. 2), A religious concept based on the actual torturous killing and murder of an innocent man does not appeal to me. and 3) I don't believe it is prudent for me to entangle myself in a system designed to denigrate me. Again, I do appreciate the offer, but no.
@@akindelebankole8080 but the Lord Jesus will accept all who come to him. Jesus has forgiven adulters,thieves,tax collectors,people who betrayed him and even his own killers that put him on a cross. If God can forgive them he can forgive you too. Jesus was innocent but he was willing to sacrifice himself because he loved the world so much that he would die for the sins of others so they can have an eternal home in heaven. The Lord doesn't want to denigrate you he wants to save you.
@@olumorganjoe I agree with you that the Lord will not denigrate anyone. However, the Bible does, and it is a resource funnelling scheme. Kudos to the smart council of Nisea that out y the gospel together for the benefit of his subjects. Europeans are the beneficiaries of Christianity, and they hold to the key to Jesus.
One major problem with the whole liberal vs. conservative science funding argument. Yes, the president sets the starting point for budget discussions, but Congress has its say. If funding went down over the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, whose fault is it - the Clinton Administration or the Republicans who took over Congress after the 1994 elections?
Nice try but it only magnifies the fact that Clinton didn't really put up a fight, did he? He could have made a public stink about the cuts to NASA but he didn't. He could have vetoed those spending bills but he didn't. He signed those budgets the Republican controlled Congress put in front of him which means he's guilty as charged. FYI the Republicans controlled Congress during 6 of the 8 years Clinton was in office.
Peter Stevenson The bigger point is that it was the Republicans who put forth cutting the budget for NASA. THey should have not done that no matter who was in office. Your argument is bias and tries to hide the republican dirty laundry.
Peter Stevenson "nice try" for making a factual argument that the president does not control the budget process? Take off the partisan blinders for 5 seconds. Maybe you should go read up on the government shutdowns in the 1990s. Clinton did veto spending bills. And after the whole partisan mess was over, he's going to veto a bill only on the grounds it doesn't include enough money for NASA? Get real. I don't need a blind partisan trying to teach me about politics. Partisans are lost and see only what they want to see. And FYI - The Democrats controlled Congress for pretty much all those years Republican Administrations "spent more" on science in the 1970s and 1980s. Not that it matters because ALL PARTISANS (except Ron Paul types) generally fund science research. Again, take off the partisan blinders.
@@StarZoneX believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
Thus you are exactly the type of person to ask Neil that question in the first place. Republicans still believe in science. You cannot have one or the other. The United States still lead the world in science and technology during trumps administration, just as it was during bush’s administration. What you are saying is a literal reflection of the type of liberals who went ahead and assumed that republicans were anti science.
"Funding for science" is in and of itself irrelevant. SELECTIVELY choosing what research to fund and which to deny funding to, on the basis of political/religious beliefs, is the definition of being anti-science.
What he essentially said was that Republicans will be for scientific spending in ways that will make them more money. Studies on climate change will not make an oil executive more money, so that funding would logically be cut, whereas research in technologies that will help automate factories would definitely be desirable. I can certainly imagine increasing funding on NASA because of the myriad of business applications to their research.
Oh, but you don't see how absurd he is, Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: ruclips.net/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/видео.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@robinmkimanzi ok but intelligence is not a major factor in politics, I love Tyson to death, but trump would and is doing a far better job, he is much better with economics and social issues
Well, I am glad you accepted the fact that, "Funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." I am not a Republican by the way.
@@diverman1023 Yep, around the same time he was supporting Anti-Vaccine groups/views, pushing for more "america friendly" education in schools, constantly pushing back against even the most accredited of scientists, and generally spitting in the face of modern science. Hell, look at that insane woman he hired who said masturbation caused portals to hell.
@@Necrobadger well that’s something you can criticize him for, but he re-routed a ton of funding to AI, networking, sensing technologies, quantum computing, and even signed off grants to fun ocean conservation students. In my field we saw a tremendous increase in opportunities because of that. If you look at the data, the average Republican President (After the moon program) is positively correlated to a net +6 billion budget in science, while the democrat presidents negatively correlated 6 billion. Niel’s statement is still correct in this case, that republicans route more funding to scientific endeavors
@@Necrobadger If you think this didn't age well you totally missed the point. His point is that science doesn't have a political bias. He is not claiming the right are more scientifically literate. He is stating that the scientific literature is a completely separate entity both sides like to claim. For example you are trying to claim the right is anti science with your Trump example, while you will probably ignore the left wing's recent anti biology rhetoric.
@@Necrobadger What's the problem with "america friendly" education. Or patriotism. That has nothing to do with science so it should not be considered bad.
He's already previously stated in another interview that he doesn't consider himself Republican or Democrat. He simply independently thinks for himself, and he thinks other people should have that same viewpoint regarding politics.
Yeah, why doesn't he bring up a false dichotomy like science vs religion!? How can he be so smart if he's not good enough at being distracted by stuff like that!
Yaakov Hatanian because evolution is science and creationism is not?? creationism is just saying "god created it, deal with it" whereas evolutionary biologists do research 'til this day!
The real wrinkle is when you get real scientists hypothesizing that, technically, you can't disprove that our universe is just a hologram or computer simulation created by some higher being.
Willaev But ultimately, that's philosophy, not science, and what scientists do is science. Philosophers do philosophy. And at times, the two do interweave with each other, but they don't become one and the same.
babybirdhome It's not philosophy, it's theoretical physics. The holographic principle is a property of string theory, and that's only one principle that should make you reconsider if you really now how stuff works. +daAnT1990 Creationism doesn't stop at "God created it." Like all theories, there is an explanation of how it happened, and though I'm sure you've been told otherwise, it is also being researched to this day, and with interesting findings.
@Luke believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
aww man, it would be so sweet to have a scientist with a major voice in the USA's financial department. Maybe the US could stop wasting so much money on the millitary and more on space-exploration and medicine research.
As a former "believer" I look back and cannot pinpoint one moment, one line of scripture, not one solitary piece of data provided by my preachers, pastors, teachers, or material sources in general, that was ever backed up by a shred of conclusive, empirical evidence. Not one! On the other hand I have seen, with my own eyes, a fraction of the utterly immense piles of evidence for a natural coming about of the universe and our species, and I am truly humbled by it.
"...50% of US tax income comes from the wealthiest 5% of Americans..." It shouldn't be that way and it's only so because middle class incomes have been stagnating for so long. If you look at history, the middle class used to pay more of the overall taxes and despite the wealthy paying lower taxes, they are now carrying much of the tax burden and yet are making so much more money that everyone else (obscenely more,) it doesn't hurt them. And that's by design.
Despite my impatience, intolerance or condescending tones at times. We are fallible human beings, but as soon as you realise that, you can see we aren't always right. No one is.
Does anyone know where the reading material he was talking about can be found? That sounds extremely interesting to read, so please, anyone give me a clue.
My measure of support for science is enviromental science, which is the only difference between Republicans and Democrats on science issues. No one is against space exploration, and no one is against medical research at this point.
Neil has no sense. He's a loser. Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: ruclips.net/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/видео.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The only problem is that the budget probably is not truly increasing... its just that inflation is lessening the value of the dollar. It would be more interesting to see if the % of federal budget going towards science research is up rather than seeing if the grants are increasing.
he has a point, the fact is that the US has no progressive representative in the presidential elections, both dems and republicans are hugely conservative in most cases, that is why the distinction is important.
for every false scientific claim, the only reason you now know it's false is because a right scientific claim contradicts it. So for every number of false scientific claims that ever existed in history, there are equal numbers of right ones. Now add the right ones with the ones that have always been right, and you have the overwhelming side of rights over wrongs.
As for playing on both sides, I don't believe so. He has been pretty clear and consistent about where he stood morally and politically throughout the years. About offending people, of course he won't purposely do that if he knows there's a way to avoid it. He doesn't need to be under fire later. He has has much greater battles to fight than dealing with petty cries from butt-hurt people. He's an educator, not a brawler. He champions science, not atheism.
Thats like saying republicans don't deny someone got killed but they aren't entirely sure whether the guy covered in blood holding the knife next to the body is the culprit and no amount of evidence would prove that he was.
There is a difference between forced government funding which eventually leads to inefficiency and waste; and private sector funding, which is voluntary and demands efficiency. Little waste. It is the difference between 1st category spending and 4th category spending.
As a democrat and lifelong supporter of liberal policies, I am glad that my preconceived notions about this particular aspect of the Bush years were disproved. There remains the small matter of the trillions wasted in two massive campaigns of conventional war against an unconventional enemy that have ended with, literally, less than nothing accomplished. I'm glad that out of a mountain of shit we could find a diamond, and perhaps a smaller one for his coral reef protection and AIDs efforts.
Getting money into the hands of the middle class and the poor isn't "giving it away." It's getting money into the hands of the people who drive the economy and buy the products produced by the companies owned by the wealthy. When the average person is only spending money on survival, the economy doesn't grow. It's about getting the economy back on track and growing small business (which provides 2/3 of all jobs in the US.)
Interesting to see Tyson 4 years ago even give a reasonable defense to the Republican party, while today he pretty much finds them deplorable. Who would have guessed?
Actually I'm not committed to any beliefs. I'm just aligning myself with plausible theories until they get disproved with a better one. That's how learning is done, that you constantly pick yourself up from mistakes and bad decisions, not by shutting off and being egoistic about what you THINK is true.
The US budget on natl. defense is about 17% while social security, medicare, federal medicaid, and unemployment make up 57%. The problem some people have is that the US makes up 47% off all monies spent on defense around the world.
I think it's funny to read all the comments that were shocked by what NDT had to say about Republicans supporting science. It just goes to show how the media influences our view of both political parties.
That's what I'm talking about; there is a scientific consensus that GMO food is safe, just as there is a scientific consensus on evolution and global warming. There has never been a study which has passed the peer review process showing that current GMO foods are any worse than non-GMO foods. People just choose to flout science when it disagrees with their confirmation bias, and accept it when it agrees.
Neil once said something along the lines of "I'm trying the educate the people of America so that they can elect scientifically literate leaders". Please know that I'm paraphrasing and that isn't exactly what he said. But if we have more scientifically literate people, we can educate scientifically literate leaders.
4:05 Does anyone know where to find the court case he talks about? I don't know what exactly to look for since I'm not familiar with the case nor all the legal semantics of the US...
Oh, I interpreted it as the Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge saying that atheist says there is no God, while Oxford says atheists just lacks belief in God. Like the difference between saying someone is not guilty, as opposed to saying they are innocent.
Mr. DeGrasse Tyson doesn't realize science is no longer necessary to make someone rich. What Wall Street does requires no science (although a bit of math and accounting trickery), but technological advancement isn't what makes lots of money in the US any longer.
He realizes that just fine. On an individual basis, science is not necessary to make someone rich. But imagine if every company in the world stopped innovating, and stopped using science, math and engineering to make their products and services better. The economy would crash and burn, simple as that. That's what he's saying. Economic growth is fuelled by innovation. Science fuels innovation. Thus science fuels the economy.
The only problem with this is that there is a difference between Republicans and the Republican Party and Democrats and the Democratic Party. In my experience, in general, Democrats support science more than Republicans; the parties, however, are more interested in politics and have special interests funding them. For the Republicans, these include oil companies and other industries who are very vested in scientific growth.
Tyson is making a dangerous comparison here. As Shawn Lawrence Otto writes in his book on anti-science in America: "Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology."
true both houses are dems but remember Bush had the power to veto any bill he does not want to approve. Even though I'm a conservative democrat, I'm with him 100% on this subject.
Neither party is truly pro-science. Pro-science means pro-sckepticism. Skepticism questions all forms of authority. Governments would never truly support science as a mindset because it empowers people and that indicates a lack of need for government.
That's kind of annoying. People who understand and ideologically oppose science actually financially and politically support it more because money. I hate how money is, practically speaking, more important to life than intelligence, and this is a perfect example of why.
Bit of an oversimplification to just say that higher budgets for government agencies translates to "pro-science." There's a lot more to promoting science than just that.
Two flaws in his argument. First, Under Kennedy and Johnson NASA had the highest level of support and funding, that no administration has since that time has given commitment too. Second, the Republicans feel that military spending = scientific investment. Carl Sagan pointed out you cancel one weapons system, or one aircraft carrier that would give NASA or NSF a significant increase in funding, without hurting America's defensive structure.
If Columbus's expedition was privately funded, maybe things would have turned out better for those who got in his way. Such important things as science, education, etc. should not be politicized.
From Wiki: Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.
con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] adjective 1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. Nothing about spending or frugality there. Even if you were to consider saving money equal to "preserving existing conditions", that would be your personal interpretation of the word, and not the literal definition.
@zenoparodie 1) I'd very much like it if we could say "of course" on this issue. Sadly, we cannot. 2) Who said to completely cancelling anything? I just see a HUGE disproportion between one thing and the other. To balance them doesn't mean to cancel one of them. 3) Companies that produce weapons ALWAYS reinvented themselves in times of peace. It's no big deal at all. Of course it's a change, but not one for the worse. 4) AHAHAH "companies" that pay "taxes", good one.
In some cases conservatism can mean frugality, true, but in other cases, the person who is conservative could want to preserve a program that is costing lots of money.
(2/2) government funds, which comes from our tax dollars, and you don't think that people should be screened for worthiness of that money? Welfare is not meant to take the place of a job, it's meant to help people get themselves out of trouble
Dr. Tyson mentioned the role of Congress in allocating resources in order to emphasize the importance of funding, but he should have paid more attention to the fact that it is Congress and not the President who has this responsibility. He got distracted by the issue of President Bush's attitude towards science, and this caused him to compare funding levels during Presidential administrations when he should have compared funding levels during House and Senate majorities. his only mistake ever...
Actually science spending went down under Bush as soon as the Democrats took over. It peaked during 04 and 05 and was the lowest under Bush during 2008.
No man in the world is a better at making science interesting to the public then Dr. Tyson. Tyson, Dawkins and Harris are the best public speakers for science in the world today and before he died Hitchens was the best public speaker for world events...
Simple fact, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity. Where there are fools, there will always be Religion. This is not a problem that came up last night, so educating these fools is not going to take overnight.
Good answer. I was going to point out the same thing. Humans surviving in the long term through evolutionary adaptation is not the same as having our current technological civilization survive.
Normal citizens have basic knowledge on bill creation and other govt functions, but the average young person has no clue because as I said, civics is now a completely optional class.
The underlying message here is that science does not have a political bias. For every conservative that doesn't believe in evolution or man made climate change, there is a liberal person who believes that marijuana cures cancer or that GMO's are evil. If anything, this should serve as a reminder that facts do not exist to strengthen our views, but to improve them by forcing the whole political spectrum to think critically, analyze data, and gather evidence before we reach our conclusions, not after.
Trevor Huff While I agree with your sentiment, I will say that facts just get in the way of politics. They just do not care.
Eidelmania - You will be judged by your own measure. Labels beget labels.
basically
@Eidelmania nope, you are just an incompetent idiot, who thinks that he could do conclusions, without making any research.
Don't forget nuclear power
Leave it to Neil to turn one of my own cherished biases on its head. Thank you professor Tyson!
When I was in college most of my fellow science students seemed to be either politically conservative or apolitical. I didn't know anyone who was politically active in any way. And,we never talked about politics much, we talked about math and science. Personally, I think that a lot people that are interested in science are apolitical.
american37 yeah i started to realize how useless it feels to argue politics overtime
@@Omoiyari23 believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
For me, I have 3 friends we all love science, 2/3 are conservative
You should check out what the left is doing to STEM. Look at Math 45 Harvard.
It's taking over the country & we are doomed.
China & the world will soon dominat us if everyone is dumbed down & smartest students are vilified & held back.
@@olumorganjoe Jesus smoked weed too
It's one extreme or the other. Remember when politicians would get together and have a drink and a cigar to talk these over like civilized grown ups and come to a reasonable compromise? I tend to lean right, especially nowadays, but both sides have good values and points that should be heard and considered by the other. Unfortunately, it seems compromise is dead, and politicians have resorted to a very childish way of dealing with each other and important issues.
Im a pretty mid left guy, but I can totally agree with this.
Both parties do have good points, so why can't we have civil discussions instead of toddler fights. I'm not gonna pin the blame on anyone, they all just act childish. Its rediculous. No matter what party you support, compromise will always yield the best results. Just because something gets done. And I think compromise actually would help keep parties in power, and ensure all citizens get represented.
The problem is that America was founded to be a Right Wing, Classical liberal country where everybody has social, religious and financial liberty; this is undeniable, as it's written into our Constitution, and no matter how politicians have swindled things and used loopholes throughout the years in order to get more money and taxes from the people, this has always been the basis of America. Democrats like JFK and the "Blue Dog Democrats" back then were not like the European-style Social Democrats we see nowadays; they were much more moderate and respected the basics of America, while also wanting to create a safety net for people going through a hard time. They were not trying to create a welfare state. Socialist Leftists, however, hijacked the Democratic party under the guise of being "liberals" (which they totally were not) ever since Kennedy was assassinated and now want to fundamentally change the basics of this country and move toward a descent into Nanny State Marxism.
Nowadays, the Republicans, while still having some flaws and small remnants of the Religious Right of the 70s and 80s, at least respect the basic tenets of America; don't overtax us in order to pay for other people. The Democrats do not respect these, and instead seek to alter out country's basic ideals. It's impossible to compromise with people who want to change our country on such a fundamental basis. When the argument was about the level of social support and welfare was the main debate, compromise was easy to come by, but when they want to give the government control over the biggest economies in the world, energy, education, technology and healthcare, they've turned their backs on America.
+TheGr8one1022 I like how you jumped in here with the lefties are bad argument and a false narrative about American history. You should inform yourself about what left wing and right wing actually stand for. Left wing emphasizes egalitarian principles. Right wing natural order and hierarchies. Principals such as equal rights under the law, free speech, religious freedom, due process and many others are left wing concepts because they emphasize equality under the law. Classical liberalism tends to be socially left wing but economically right wing. It acknowledges government oppression while ignoring potential private economic oppressions. That's where social liberalism and the policies pushed during the New Deal era come in. Neither liberalism nor conservatism are entirely left or right wing and no ideology ever should be. As the first two posters put it, both ideological wings are necessary for a balanced healthy society and neither should be ignored nor dismissed.
@@ilikeme1234 believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
@@olumorganjoe Please don't be the crazy type of republican. I am also a republican but also an atheist, and it's just, shoving bible scriptures down anyone's throat won't suddenly convert them to Christianity.
stop aligning yourselves with parties if u think u're so bright and open minded.
GoThermonukular + I agree. In fact, my skepticism makes me very independent. I'd rather be objective about all sides, than to blindly align or enjoin myself foolishly to any one side.
Great
@@akindelebankole8080 believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
@@olumorganjoe Thank you kindly for the offer. Unfortunately, it is not one that I can even pretend to accept for a few reasons. 1) It is not possible for me to be a blood Christian because I'm not European. 2), A religious concept based on the actual torturous killing and murder of an innocent man does not appeal to me. and 3) I don't believe it is prudent for me to entangle myself in a system designed to denigrate me.
Again, I do appreciate the offer, but no.
@@akindelebankole8080 but the Lord Jesus will accept all who come to him. Jesus has forgiven adulters,thieves,tax collectors,people who betrayed him and even his own killers that put him on a cross. If God can forgive them he can forgive you too. Jesus was innocent but he was willing to sacrifice himself because he loved the world so much that he would die for the sins of others so they can have an eternal home in heaven. The Lord doesn't want to denigrate you he wants to save you.
@@olumorganjoe I agree with you that the Lord will not denigrate anyone. However, the Bible does, and it is a resource funnelling scheme. Kudos to the smart council of Nisea that out y the gospel together for the benefit of his subjects. Europeans are the beneficiaries of Christianity, and they hold to the key to Jesus.
Make no mistake: I scrolled down and began laughing uncontrollably :)
One major problem with the whole liberal vs. conservative science funding argument. Yes, the president sets the starting point for budget discussions, but Congress has its say. If funding went down over the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, whose fault is it - the Clinton Administration or the Republicans who took over Congress after the 1994 elections?
Nice try but it only magnifies the fact that Clinton didn't really put up a fight, did he? He could have made a public stink about the cuts to NASA but he didn't. He could have vetoed those spending bills but he didn't. He signed those budgets the Republican controlled Congress put in front of him which means he's guilty as charged. FYI the Republicans controlled Congress during 6 of the 8 years Clinton was in office.
Peter Stevenson The bigger point is that it was the Republicans who put forth cutting the budget for NASA. THey should have not done that no matter who was in office. Your argument is bias and tries to hide the republican dirty laundry.
Peter Stevenson
"nice try" for making a factual argument that the president does not control the budget process? Take off the partisan blinders for 5 seconds.
Maybe you should go read up on the government shutdowns in the 1990s. Clinton did veto spending bills. And after the whole partisan mess was over, he's going to veto a bill only on the grounds it doesn't include enough money for NASA? Get real. I don't need a blind partisan trying to teach me about politics. Partisans are lost and see only what they want to see.
And FYI - The Democrats controlled Congress for pretty much all those years Republican Administrations "spent more" on science in the 1970s and 1980s. Not that it matters because ALL PARTISANS (except Ron Paul types) generally fund science research. Again, take off the partisan blinders.
@@StarZoneX believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
@@olumorganjoe ok when you find eternal life call me..
The last 5 years has not been kind to this response. I miss the time when Republicans thought science was real.
Thus you are exactly the type of person to ask Neil that question in the first place. Republicans still believe in science. You cannot have one or the other. The United States still lead the world in science and technology during trumps administration, just as it was during bush’s administration. What you are saying is a literal reflection of the type of liberals who went ahead and assumed that republicans were anti science.
"in their IMAGE" is the key phrase here, at the presnt moment neither party is very pro-science and that is a huge problem.
"Funding for science" is in and of itself irrelevant. SELECTIVELY choosing what research to fund and which to deny funding to, on the basis of political/religious beliefs, is the definition of being anti-science.
It's really hard to resist watching Neil Tyson videos even though I'll probably exceed my allocated Bandwidth limit >.>'
That is why I am so disgusted at how bloated our defense budget is.
Now that is mature conversation regarding science. Thank you, NdGT!
What he essentially said was that Republicans will be for scientific spending in ways that will make them more money. Studies on climate change will not make an oil executive more money, so that funding would logically be cut, whereas research in technologies that will help automate factories would definitely be desirable. I can certainly imagine increasing funding on NASA because of the myriad of business applications to their research.
i love how neil knows about everything he is asked
Oh, but you don't see how absurd he is,
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: ruclips.net/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/видео.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No one in the political space would ever be able to win a debate against Dr. Tyson.
i wish he was president
No he'd be horrible he knows nothing about politics
@@__-on8rk he is far smarter than trump
@@robinmkimanzi ok but intelligence is not a major factor in politics, I love Tyson to death, but trump would and is doing a far better job, he is much better with economics and social issues
I'm trying to find the written court case, does anyone know the name of it? I would love to read it.
Democrats in 2018: There are more than two genders
Democrats in 2020: There are infinite genders.
Democrats in 2021: Men are women and women are men. Women are birthing people.
Well, I am glad you accepted the fact that, "Funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." I am not a Republican by the way.
Oof, this didn't age well. Guess he can't be right all the time, lol.
Didn’t trump increase NASA’s budget
@@diverman1023 Yep, around the same time he was supporting Anti-Vaccine groups/views, pushing for more "america friendly" education in schools, constantly pushing back against even the most accredited of scientists, and generally spitting in the face of modern science. Hell, look at that insane woman he hired who said masturbation caused portals to hell.
@@Necrobadger well that’s something you can criticize him for, but he re-routed a ton of funding to AI, networking, sensing technologies, quantum computing, and even signed off grants to fun ocean conservation students. In my field we saw a tremendous increase in opportunities because of that.
If you look at the data, the average Republican President (After the moon program) is positively correlated to a net +6 billion budget in science, while the democrat presidents negatively correlated 6 billion.
Niel’s statement is still correct in this case, that republicans route more funding to scientific endeavors
@@Necrobadger If you think this didn't age well you totally missed the point. His point is that science doesn't have a political bias. He is not claiming the right are more scientifically literate. He is stating that the scientific literature is a completely separate entity both sides like to claim.
For example you are trying to claim the right is anti science with your Trump example, while you will probably ignore the left wing's recent anti biology rhetoric.
@@Necrobadger What's the problem with "america friendly" education. Or patriotism. That has nothing to do with science so it should not be considered bad.
He's already previously stated in another interview that he doesn't consider himself Republican or Democrat. He simply independently thinks for himself, and he thinks other people should have that same viewpoint regarding politics.
Why did he leave out creationism VS. evolution as an anti-schience example of Republicans?
I really do not get this guy a lot of times!
Yeah, why doesn't he bring up a false dichotomy like science vs religion!? How can he be so smart if he's not good enough at being distracted by stuff like that!
Yaakov Hatanian because evolution is science and creationism is not??
creationism is just saying "god created it, deal with it" whereas evolutionary biologists do research 'til this day!
The real wrinkle is when you get real scientists hypothesizing that, technically, you can't disprove that our universe is just a hologram or computer simulation created by some higher being.
Willaev But ultimately, that's philosophy, not science, and what scientists do is science. Philosophers do philosophy. And at times, the two do interweave with each other, but they don't become one and the same.
babybirdhome
It's not philosophy, it's theoretical physics. The holographic principle is a property of string theory, and that's only one principle that should make you reconsider if you really now how stuff works.
+daAnT1990 Creationism doesn't stop at "God created it." Like all theories, there is an explanation of how it happened, and though I'm sure you've been told otherwise, it is also being researched to this day, and with interesting findings.
let the private sector handle science. If you don't want to politicize science then get the gov and tax money out of it.
Except that is where:
A: Most of the money is
B:An excellent place for a grant towards non applied sciences
Maxariana smith That isn’t a great idea, as businesspeople have constantly paid scientists to manipulate data for the interest of the business
This is why I'm proud to be a republican, we want to advance science forward.
+SwegMasterTV You clearly didn't watch the same video as me
Konnonic Umm... I’m not so sure about that. I mean if Republicans wanted to advance science, they would invest more in renewable energy as well
@Luke believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. For God so loved that world he sent his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life. Jesus Christ died to save you from your sin and its only by trusting in his sacrifice alone for salvation can one find eternal life. Being a Christian may be hard but take hear Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
aww man, it would be so sweet to have a scientist with a major voice in the USA's financial department. Maybe the US could stop wasting so much money on the millitary and more on space-exploration and medicine research.
As a former "believer" I look back and cannot pinpoint one moment, one line of scripture, not one solitary piece of data provided by my preachers, pastors, teachers, or material sources in general, that was ever backed up by a shred of conclusive, empirical evidence. Not one! On the other hand I have seen, with my own eyes, a fraction of the utterly immense piles of evidence for a natural coming about of the universe and our species, and I am truly humbled by it.
"...50% of US tax income comes from the wealthiest 5% of Americans..." It shouldn't be that way and it's only so because middle class incomes have been stagnating for so long. If you look at history, the middle class used to pay more of the overall taxes and despite the wealthy paying lower taxes, they are now carrying much of the tax burden and yet are making so much more money that everyone else (obscenely more,) it doesn't hurt them. And that's by design.
Despite my impatience, intolerance or condescending tones at times. We are fallible human beings, but as soon as you realise that, you can see we aren't always right. No one is.
Does anyone know where the reading material he was talking about can be found? That sounds extremely interesting to read, so please, anyone give me a clue.
My measure of support for science is enviromental science, which is the only difference between Republicans and Democrats on science issues. No one is against space exploration, and no one is against medical research at this point.
Finally someone with common sense
Neil has no sense. He's a loser.
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: ruclips.net/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/видео.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The short summary description of this video is quite misleading and incomplete.
The only problem is that the budget probably is not truly increasing... its just that inflation is lessening the value of the dollar. It would be more interesting to see if the % of federal budget going towards science research is up rather than seeing if the grants are increasing.
he has a point, the fact is that the US has no progressive representative in the presidential elections, both dems and republicans are hugely conservative in most cases, that is why the distinction is important.
Also overwhelmingly unemployed.
As a theist Libertarian, your attempts to describe 'liberals' would describe me as well, and I'm right-wing.
for every false scientific claim, the only reason you now know it's false is because a right scientific claim contradicts it. So for every number of false scientific claims that ever existed in history, there are equal numbers of right ones. Now add the right ones with the ones that have always been right, and you have the overwhelming side of rights over wrongs.
As for playing on both sides, I don't believe so. He has been pretty clear and consistent about where he stood morally and politically throughout the years. About offending people, of course he won't purposely do that if he knows there's a way to avoid it. He doesn't need to be under fire later. He has has much greater battles to fight than dealing with petty cries from butt-hurt people. He's an educator, not a brawler. He champions science, not atheism.
Thats like saying republicans don't deny someone got killed but they aren't entirely sure whether the guy covered in blood holding the knife next to the body is the culprit and no amount of evidence would prove that he was.
There is a difference between forced government funding which eventually leads to inefficiency and waste; and private sector funding, which is voluntary and demands efficiency. Little waste. It is the difference between 1st category spending and 4th category spending.
By today's standards, I would lean towards, not exactly a Reagan-era Republican, but an Eisenhower or Lincoln-era Republican.
Historical fact: Williams Jennings Bryan, a progressive Democrat, supported prosecution on Scopes who taught Evolution in schools.
As a democrat and lifelong supporter of liberal policies, I am glad that my preconceived notions about this particular aspect of the Bush years were disproved.
There remains the small matter of the trillions wasted in two massive campaigns of conventional war against an unconventional enemy that have ended with, literally, less than nothing accomplished.
I'm glad that out of a mountain of shit we could find a diamond, and perhaps a smaller one for his coral reef protection and AIDs efforts.
when someone ask me Republican or democrat,i just ignored their stupid question.
Getting money into the hands of the middle class and the poor isn't "giving it away." It's getting money into the hands of the people who drive the economy and buy the products produced by the companies owned by the wealthy. When the average person is only spending money on survival, the economy doesn't grow. It's about getting the economy back on track and growing small business (which provides 2/3 of all jobs in the US.)
Interesting to see Tyson 4 years ago even give a reasonable defense to the Republican party, while today he pretty much finds them deplorable. Who would have guessed?
Actually I'm not committed to any beliefs. I'm just aligning myself with plausible theories until they get disproved with a better one. That's how learning is done, that you constantly pick yourself up from mistakes and bad decisions, not by shutting off and being egoistic about what you THINK is true.
The US budget on natl. defense is about 17% while social security, medicare, federal medicaid, and unemployment make up 57%. The problem some people have is that the US makes up 47% off all monies spent on defense around the world.
This video did not age well
I didn't mean for it to be taken in that way. I apologize if you did.
They don't need to be parties to be categorized and filled with political jargon.
Increasing govt money isn't pro science, it's pro govt control.
I think it's funny to read all the comments that were shocked by what NDT had to say about Republicans supporting science. It just goes to show how the media influences our view of both political parties.
Because people like Dr. Tyson know better than to get into American politics.
This is a rhetorical question right? Oh, it isn't.
That's what I'm talking about; there is a scientific consensus that GMO food is safe, just as there is a scientific consensus on evolution and global warming. There has never been a study which has passed the peer review process showing that current GMO foods are any worse than non-GMO foods. People just choose to flout science when it disagrees with their confirmation bias, and accept it when it agrees.
Science doesn't let you communicate, only understand. But like with many other forms of understanding, it can be misinterpreted or ignored.
Also, synonyms never carry the same connotation.
Ignoring the fact that the previous left-wing administrations, and current left-wing administrations are equally as bad.
Neil once said something along the lines of "I'm trying the educate the people of America so that they can elect scientifically literate leaders". Please know that I'm paraphrasing and that isn't exactly what he said. But if we have more scientifically literate people, we can educate scientifically literate leaders.
4:05 Does anyone know where to find the court case he talks about? I don't know what exactly to look for since I'm not familiar with the case nor all the legal semantics of the US...
He's not a scientist he's a celebrity.
Oh, I interpreted it as the Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge saying that atheist says there is no God, while Oxford says atheists just lacks belief in God. Like the difference between saying someone is not guilty, as opposed to saying they are innocent.
Neil would've been the best Black President we could have ever had.
Budget is one of the things the President has the strongest control over - many things the President's role is overstated, Budget is not one of them.
Mr. DeGrasse Tyson doesn't realize science is no longer necessary to make someone rich. What Wall Street does requires no science (although a bit of math and accounting trickery), but technological advancement isn't what makes lots of money in the US any longer.
Your correct. But i think that this unfortunately applies to a majority of the electorate
He realizes that just fine. On an individual basis, science is not necessary to make someone rich. But imagine if every company in the world stopped innovating, and stopped using science, math and engineering to make their products and services better. The economy would crash and burn, simple as that.
That's what he's saying. Economic growth is fuelled by innovation. Science fuels innovation. Thus science fuels the economy.
The only problem with this is that there is a difference between Republicans and the Republican Party and Democrats and the Democratic Party. In my experience, in general, Democrats support science more than Republicans; the parties, however, are more interested in politics and have special interests funding them. For the Republicans, these include oil companies and other industries who are very vested in scientific growth.
Tyson is making a dangerous comparison here. As Shawn Lawrence Otto writes in his book on anti-science in America: "Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology."
true both houses are dems but remember Bush had the power to veto any bill he does not want to approve. Even though I'm a conservative democrat, I'm with him 100% on this subject.
I consider myself a liberal (a socialist, if you will), and I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is absolutely right.
This is a wake-up call for liberals!
true, however don't forget that a massive part of the Defense budget goes directly to that which you want...
Neither party is truly pro-science. Pro-science means pro-sckepticism. Skepticism questions all forms of authority. Governments would never truly support science as a mindset because it empowers people and that indicates a lack of need for government.
That's kind of annoying. People who understand and ideologically oppose science actually financially and politically support it more because money. I hate how money is, practically speaking, more important to life than intelligence, and this is a perfect example of why.
Wow did not expect that answer
Bit of an oversimplification to just say that higher budgets for government agencies translates to "pro-science." There's a lot more to promoting science than just that.
His answer doesn't say anything about his other views on the party.
Two flaws in his argument. First, Under Kennedy and Johnson NASA had the highest level of support and funding, that no administration has since that time has given commitment too. Second, the Republicans feel that military spending = scientific investment. Carl Sagan pointed out you cancel one weapons system, or one aircraft carrier that would give NASA or NSF a significant increase in funding, without hurting America's defensive structure.
If Columbus's expedition was privately funded, maybe things would have turned out better for those who got in his way. Such important things as science, education, etc. should not be politicized.
.. only people can make the changes you envision based on science. Putting elected officials in charge of public policy will always be disastrous.
I still haven't received an explanation.
From Wiki:
Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.
con·serv·a·tive
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
lib·er·al
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective
1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Nothing about spending or frugality there. Even if you were to consider saving money equal to "preserving existing conditions", that would be your personal interpretation of the word, and not the literal definition.
@zenoparodie 1) I'd very much like it if we could say "of course" on this issue. Sadly, we cannot. 2) Who said to completely cancelling anything? I just see a HUGE disproportion between one thing and the other. To balance them doesn't mean to cancel one of them. 3) Companies that produce weapons ALWAYS reinvented themselves in times of peace. It's no big deal at all. Of course it's a change, but not one for the worse. 4) AHAHAH "companies" that pay "taxes", good one.
In some cases conservatism can mean frugality, true, but in other cases, the person who is conservative could want to preserve a program that is costing lots of money.
The answer is neither.
Intelligent Design is a philosophy, an idea, not a science. Science is doing actual research.
(2/2) government funds, which comes from our tax dollars, and you don't think that people should be screened for worthiness of that money? Welfare is not meant to take the place of a job, it's meant to help people get themselves out of trouble
Dr. Tyson mentioned the role of Congress in allocating resources in order to emphasize the importance of funding, but he should have paid more attention to the fact that it is Congress and not the President who has this responsibility. He got distracted by the issue of President Bush's attitude towards science, and this caused him to compare funding levels during Presidential administrations when he should have compared funding levels during House and Senate majorities. his only mistake ever...
I officially support the Green Party now. Former Conservative.
Actually science spending went down under Bush as soon as the Democrats took over. It peaked during 04 and 05 and was the lowest under Bush during 2008.
What makes us think, as a species, we're not supposed to die off?
what the hell difference does it make if you die poor or if you die rich
you're dead either way
No man in the world is a better at making science interesting to the public then Dr. Tyson.
Tyson, Dawkins and Harris are the best public speakers for science in the world today and before he died Hitchens was the best public speaker for world events...
Simple fact, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity. Where there are fools, there will always be Religion. This is not a problem that came up last night, so educating these fools is not going to take overnight.
where can i find the court case writings??
Good answer. I was going to point out the same thing. Humans surviving in the long term through evolutionary adaptation is not the same as having our current technological civilization survive.
Normal citizens have basic knowledge on bill creation and other govt functions, but the average young person has no clue because as I said, civics is now a completely optional class.
The Cloud Atlas trailer ad just made me forget what video I was trying to watch.