A thoughtful article on the Scientific Regression published in May of 2016, deliberately calls out Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye as "the worst enemies of Science's actual practice."
William A. Wilson published this article on FirstThings.com, in which he lays out the inherent flaws to confirmation bias, the desire to publish science which correlates with results, and the inherent fraudulent characteristics this engenders.
"Older scientists contribute to the propagation of scientific fields in ways that go beyond educating and mentoring a new generation. In many fields, it’s common for an established and respected researcher to serve as “senior author” on a bright young star’s first few publications, lending his prestige and credibility to the result, and signaling to reviewers that he stands behind it. In the natural sciences and medicine, senior scientists are frequently the controllers of laboratory resources—which these days include not just scientific instruments, but dedicated staffs of grant proposal writers and regulatory compliance experts—without which a young scientist has no hope of accomplishing significant research. Older scientists control access to scientific prestige by serving on the editorial boards of major journals and on university tenure-review committees. Finally, the government bodies that award the vast majority of scientific funding are either staffed or advised by distinguished practitioners in the field."
"The hagiographies of science are full of paeans to the self-correcting, self-healing nature of the enterprise. But if raw results are so often false, the filtering mechanisms so ineffective, and the self-correcting mechanisms so compromised and slow, then science’s approach to truth may not even be monotonic. That is, past theories, now “refuted” by evidence and replaced with new approaches, may be closer to the truth than what we think now."
Wilson points out that the two most prominent findings in recent years with respect to hard scientific studies, ,have both been recanted.
"Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years—the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border--have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published."
Finally, Williams aims his critique at the Cult of Science, likens it to a religion, and pinpoints both Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye as popularizers whom have conducted little to no research on their own.
"If science was unprepared for the influx of careerists, it was even less prepared for the blossoming of the Cult of Science. The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance. Its rhetorical tics include a forced enthusiasm (a search on Twitter for the hashtag “#sciencedancing” speaks volumes) and a penchant for profanity. Here in Silicon Valley, one can scarcely go a day without seeing a t-shirt reading “Science: It works, b—es!” The hero of the recent popular movie The Martian boasts that he will “science the sh— out of” a situation. One of the largest groups on Facebook is titled “I f—ing love Science!” (a name which, combined with the group’s penchant for posting scarcely any actual scientific material but a lot of pictures of natural phenomena, has prompted more than one actual scientist of my acquaintance to mutter under her breath, “What you truly love is pictures”). Some of the Cult’s leaders like to play dress-up as scientists—Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are two particularly prominent examples— but hardly any of them have contributed any research results of note. Rather, Cult leadership trends heavily in the direction of educators, popularizers, and journalists."
"When cultural trends attempt to render science a sort of religion-less clericalism, scientists are apt to forget that they are made of the same crooked timber as the rest of humanity and will necessarily imperil the work that they do. The greatest friends of the Cult of Science are the worst enemies of science’s actual practice."
William A. Wilson is a software engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Life Noggin releases video, 'This is How We Know The Earth Is Flat' in the wake of D. Marble taking his Spirit Level on an Airplane
Broadcasting to more than 1.3 Million subscribers, Life Noggin has hopped on the Flat Earth Debunk Train. Their recent video, made in response to D. Marble's Spirit Level Experiment (Flat Earthers toss him a like, he got a lotta hate for it), and has a sum total half a million views, about the same as D. Marble's video. We're gonna walk through the points Life Noggin made one by one, and see what's what. Here goes:
"Right now you're probably watching this video from somewhere on Earth. That big round beautiful planet humans call home. But how do you know the earth is round?"
FIRST REBUTTAL: FLAT EARTHERS DO NOT CLAIM THE EARTH IS NOT ROUND. THEY CLAIM THE EARTH IS NOT A SPHERE AT THE SIZE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, AND EITHER IT'S A BIGGER SPHERE OR IT'S LEVEL AS IT APPEARS TO BE (WITHSTANDING MOUNTAINS AND VALLEYS). THIS IS A KEY LANGUAGE ISSUE AS THE EARTH COULD BE ROUND AND FLAT, LIKE DINNER PLATES, FRISBEES, LAKES, AND MANY OTHER THINGS.
"But how do we know the earth is round? Your senses would tell you the earth is flat.
This is true. Our senses indicate a flat and stationary earth.
Youtube Personality Brian Mullin, who Found Popularity for His Flat Earth Engineering and Physics Show, 'Balls Out Physics', Scrubbed His Material and Changed Account to Creational Cosmology Institute on YouTube
*Updated May 19 2017
The reason for his removing the account, or for having his account removed, is as of yet unknown. First off, it seemed he took down the material himself because he was going through a re-branding. This was evident because his YouTube Page changed its name to Creation Cosmology Institute, and Creation Cosmology had a Facebook Page, and a Google Plus Page. But as of May 19th, 2017, the YouTube and Facebook are now completely deleted, which speaks against the rebranding, and begs the question as to why Mullin would scrub over 18k subscribers.
Around April 19th, 2017 the content from the well known Channel ran by Mullin came down off YouTube but the Account remained active. This as mentioned suggested a simple rebranding. But in light of this recent deletion "rebranding" feels less likely. If Mullin didn't back Balls Out Physics, wouldn't he have spoken out and said so? Even though he may be moving out of the content arena and more toward producing, such as with his work on the Flat Earth International Conference (FEIC) in 2017, why so brazenly incommunicado?
Whether he's moving away from the lens, or his content is being leaned on, the removal of the Series is deserving of an explanation, and the absence of one is disheartening. It would be very nice if Brian Mullin cleared it up. The longer he doesn't the less convinced I am that he chose to take down the series. If Brian was going to willfully leave YT, would he not give a fair well video and explain why to his followers?
The sudden movements without comment are concerning. If Brian Mullin doesn't back his own work anymore, that seems like something he would want people to know. The censoring of Flat Earth Youtube Channels has occurred before, such as with ODD TV. Mullin became well known for his work on 'Balls Out Physics', coupled with his down to earth personality and straightforward attitude. BOP is of a calibre that makes censorship possible, particularly for its Flat Earth disposition towards mathematics, physics, and engineering. You can watch Mullin's 'Balls Out Physics' in its entirety here and/or the documentary he Executive Produced, 'Scientism Exposed', which was directed by Robbie Davidson. Check his IMDB Page here. (Click Image To Read More)
In the truest sense, there is only one direction, known in English as North because all other "directions" are defined in relation to North.
North is defined geophysically by the magnetic pull of the Earth, and astronomically by Polaris (which means Pole star). There are 360 angles, consisting of three successive 90 Degree shifts away from North, known as East, South and West; all of which are all determined in relation to North. This axiom that there really is only one direction (the Earth's magnet pull), is evidenced by the fact that all "directions" except North are contingent, subordinate and defined in relation to the Earth's Pull.
If you live a few degrees below the Equator, and you can See Polaris, well then you've just debunked an Astrophysicist!
Shout out and call out to all the Flat Earthers and Globe-heads living near or around 2 Degrees South Latitude. That means you Ecuador, Brazil, Tanzania, and Indonesia (Jayapura)! Indonesia you may be the best bet as you Google "Flat Earth" more than any other country in the world. Simply go outside and see if you can find Polaris, check your Latitude on your smart phone, if you are below 1.5 Degrees South Latitude and you can observe Polaris, then you just debunked an Astrophysicist!
Was the Flat Earth PhD a Hoax? Mired circumstances suggest possible PhD Hoax and controlled oppositional narrative.
A shitty misspelled six page "draft" of a PhD engenders the condemnation of the Tunisian Astronomical Society, The University of Sfax, the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education, and an Op-Ed by an Astrophycisist who worked for NASA. Is such activity warranted? Doesn't this seem a bit over-reactionary? Is it possible the reaction is the desired imprint of this story? Let's find out.
Reports have come in that a doctoral candidate from the University of Sfax, Tunisia, under Professor Jamel Touir, former deputy at the National Constituent Assembly, presented a Flat Earth thesis entitled, The Flat Earth Model, Arguments and Impacts on Climate and Paleo-Climate Studies, which claims, "all the data and the physical religious arguments have made it possible to demonstrate the central position, the fixation and the flattening of the surface of the earth, and the revolution of the sun and moon around it." After sustaining serious blow-back, possibly incited by a former president of the Tunisian Astronomical Society whom an early copy of the paper was leaked to, Professor Jamel Touir stands by his student defending both of their constitutional rights to 'freedom of thought' and 'academic freedom'. Professor Touir also notes that for this constitutional exercise he is now 'the object of a malicious campaign, damaging his reputation and his scientific skills."
The question herein is did Professor Jame Touir oversee a Flat Earth PhD Thesis since 2011, and if so, why can't anyone read it or know who wrote it? (Click image for more).
Does Polaris disappear from sight 105 miles South of Equator?
Astrophysicist Neil Tyson tweeted out last year to rapper B.O.B. that Polaris is "gone by 1.5 deg S. Latitude." One degree of the earth's circumference is approximately 70 miles, so 1.5 degrees equals about 105 miles. Some Flat Earth Theorists claim Polaris can be seen from as far South as the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5 degrees, that's ~1,645 miles below the equator. This is a huge discrepancy! If this be the case, the tweet below from Tyson's twitter account stands to be debunked...