Did Neil Degrass Tyson ever respond to this?

Did Neil Degrass Tyson ever respond to this?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he's a popular scientist his job is to say "sciency" shit and promote israeli propaganda.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There seems to be a flaw in Norm's counter-argument, which is that he believed that everything that can be claimed for the universe applies for humans as well, but what Neil claimed is that the universe as a whole does not hold the particularly human-like characteristic of "caring".
    A - beings that care
    B - the universe
    C - humans
    A⊆C, A⊆B, B⊈A.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Humans are a part of the universe, therefore all the qualities of humans, like ethical duty and affectivity, are qualities of the universe, being qualities of a part of the universe. Therefore the universe possesses the qualities of ethical duty and affectivity, akin to how you possess the quality of nails despite not being a toenail, the qualities of a part are qualities of the whole.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >humans are self aware
          >b-but my fingernail is not self aware, and the fingernail is a part of my body therefore you can't say humans are self aware!
          Imagine posting a link to a reddit fallacy without even understanding it doesn't apply in this case.

          Humans are intelligent, therefore the universe is intelligent.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your fingernail being or not being intellignet has no bearing on weather or not you are intelligent. Your fingernail will not be intelligent whether you are dead (not intelligent) or alive (intelligent).
            In the same way, humans being intelligeny has no bearing on whether the universe is intelligent or not intelligent

            >treating arguments like wizard fights, casting fallacy names like spells
            You absolute common retard.

            It is far easier to copy and paste a link than have to write a whole new argument in multiple internet fights, which I see I've had to do anyway

            A property of a part is a property of the whole, you're making the mistake of thinking that properties of the whole are necessarily properties of all parts. Your toenail (part) is a property of you (the whole), but nails are not a property of your heart (another part of you). Ethical duty and affectivity are properties of a part of the universe (men), and therefore a property of the universe as a whole, but not a property of all other parts of the universe.

            Let's follow this logic to its logical conclusion. The cells that make up your toenail are dead, so we can say they have the property of being dead. This means that the toenail has the property of being dead because its parts (the cells) have the property of being dead. Since the toenail has the property of being dead and the toenail is part of the human, the human must also have the property of being dead. But since we know that the human is alive, this contradiction shows that properties of parts are not necessarily properties of the whole

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I didn't bother reading all the chains here, but I just wanted to inform you that you are a massive retard. Humans are indeed alive, but parts of them can simultaneously be dead. There is no contradiction whatsoever. That is all.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >reading comprehension
                The contradiction is in the principle that the whole has all the properties of its parts. Look up proof bh contradiction

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >some parts of my brain govern my friendliness
                >some other parts govern my eyesight
                welp, therefore I can't say I am friendly and I can see because that would mean that the whole takes properties from the parts and that's a heckkin' fallacy!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >treating arguments like wizard fights, casting fallacy names like spells
          You absolute common retard.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A property of a part is a property of the whole, you're making the mistake of thinking that properties of the whole are necessarily properties of all parts. Your toenail (part) is a property of you (the whole), but nails are not a property of your heart (another part of you). Ethical duty and affectivity are properties of a part of the universe (men), and therefore a property of the universe as a whole, but not a property of all other parts of the universe.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A property of a part is a property of the whole
            A property of part of the whole is a property that part of the whole has.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              nice jpg

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.
          but atoms arent invisible

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is no flaw. For the universe to be completely indifferent and uncaring, every part of it has to be so, but human beings which are part of the universe can be sympathetic and caring. That obviously means there is at least a small amount of sympathy and care in the universe

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      if we are the universe experiencing itself, and humans are capable of caring, then

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Neil defined the universe as uncaring, so nothing that cares can belong to the universe. If humans care, then either we are not a part of the universe or we are uncaring. Since we are part of the universe and are capable of caring about the world and other people, then the universe can care.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >If humans care, then either we are not a part of the universe or we are uncaring
        If humans exist*

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what a fucking pseud (macdonald I mean)

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t understand what Norm was saying her but he was and still is a treasure.

      See a clinical psychologist and ask for an assessment to see if you have autism spectrum disorder.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t understand what Norm was saying her but he was and still is a treasure.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      he's saying the universe isn't completely uncaring because people are part of the universe and they can be caring

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That sounds stupid. Nihilism is settled science. Anyone who disagrees is a white nationalist and/or conspiracy theorist.
        End of discussion.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          can confirm. am one of those caring white national supremacists

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          lmao, context for that pic? I can't imagine paying a ticket to see the damn T-Rex and it's covered with that

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Some museum put it up. When they got a lot of bad reviews about it they said "Who cares lol we hate you."

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          lmao, context for that pic? I can't imagine paying a ticket to see the damn T-Rex and it's covered with that

          Some museum put it up. When they got a lot of bad reviews about it they said "Who cares lol we hate you."

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Nihilism is settled science
          t. High schooler who heard about Nietzche for the first time

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Nihilism and naturalism are easily destroyed. If people received a proper education there would be almost no atheist left in the world.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he's saying the universe isn't completely uncaring because people are part of the universe and they can be caring
        But what about people that are spiteful sadists?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think he's saying Neil's nihilist cringe is just an artifact of how a certain strain of "intellectuals" chooses to divide the world.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we are not superior to the Universe but merely a fraction of it
    Isn't that what Neil deGrasse Tyson is implying?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Neil was trying to imply he's smarter than everyone else by saying something witty, but it didn't pan out.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think Neil was trying to pander to his fellow fedora-tippers for the sake of reinforcing the fedorajerk, not exactly trying to say something unique.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No. Neil is basically tacitly advocating some sort of dualism the separates humanity from the natural world. He views human psychology and cognition as somehow not possessing the same ontological reality as physical matter. Or perhaps in his anthropocentric hubris (a quality that many modern liberals ironically display, despite claiming not to place humans at the center of cosmology in the way that traditional religions do) he simply forgot that human are literally part of the universe.

      I think Neil was trying to pander to his fellow fedora-tippers for the sake of reinforcing the fedorajerk, not exactly trying to say something unique.

      Don't compare Neil to Dawkins. At least Dawkins did actually research on biology, and despite many of his shitlib takes, he's always been a hardcore critic of Islam and Judaism, and far-left ideologies like feminism and post-modernism. It's true that he was the main inspiration to an entire generation of fedora tippers, but he has also spent many years triggering literal Zionist rabbis and pink haired feminists.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >tacitly suggests human consciousness is nothing but an abstract concept that doesn't hold the same ontological status as physical matter
        >Neil's anthropocentric hubris
        You sir are a midwit
        >(a quality that many modern liberals ironically display, despite claiming not to place humans at the center of cosmology in the way that traditional religions do) [...] and despite many of his shitlib takes, he's always been a hardcore critic of Islam and Judaism, and far-left ideologies like feminism and post-modernism. It's true that he was the main inspiration to an entire generation of fedora tippers, but he has also spent many years triggering literal Zionist rabbis and pink haired feminists.
        I am not even left-wing but the fact that you had to throw this in is very telling. Imagine being so obsessed with politics and its actors. You sir are midwit, an obsessed one.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >DUDE LE HECKIN SAPPY INSPIRATIONAL QUOTE I SHED A TEAR EVERY TIME

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tyson gave everyone a hint of how our Elite among society thinks and feels. They are uncaring and cold and are forced to pretend to have human emotions so they can take money from stupid people.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They shot Norm with their cancer gun.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The earth's mass is approximately 0.0003% of the mass of the solar system. The solar system does not care about your sorrow and pain. You should kill yourself.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Something having a lot of mass does not mean it's important, significant, or worth paying attention to in any way. Proof: nobody respects fat people.

      Humans have very little mass in comparison, which is why we're more attractive and have better opinions.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Proof: nobody respects fat people
        lol. lmao, even.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        u wot m8. mass in sufficient quantities literally warps the shape of space itself

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's that high? Interesting and impressive.

      But that is a non sequitur anyways; it's neither here nor here.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      are you for real?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You think I care if a rock hates me? Look buddy you can be suicidal over what a grain of sand thinks and live in a commune with your comrades but I got a life to live.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Neil DeRapist Tyson

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no way Norm has been dead for one year already

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He did. That's why Norm was killed.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uh oh. Wordcel thread.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kind of makes sense.

    If you have one single cell that is composed entirely of gold, you are made of gold. Partially, but you are still made of gold.

    99.99999999999999999999999999% of the universe might be uncaring, but the fact that you are means that the atoms that comprise you comprise a caring fraction of the universe. Thus the universe contains caring and in principle is a caring phenomenon.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I see where you are all coming from but this is outright autism

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >blind
    >indifferent
    PROJECTING
    the universe IS our sorrow AND pain
    tired of these atheists inverting LOGIC

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I am so happy that i live in a progressive future which includes blacks and other minorities in the sciences

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I love the Kali Yuga!

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I fucking love Norm. One of the few sane comedians who was in the career to have fun, not make money.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    some pseud thinks two opposing absolutes cannot be true. There that's the thread. do not read.

Your email address will not be published.