Difficult to argue with that
Wednesday, 12 Mar 2025
Exclusive insights, data, and analysis for financial market experts.
Search
Have an existing account?
Sign In
Science can always change in the face of new evidence. It’s not your personal religion. You should always question it. And always question what others publish if you disagree.
It almost sounds like “don’t question the science” which is the opposite of what the science is supposed to be.
Except that’s not how science works. That’s a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and is bordering on dogmatism. There’s no sense really in which science is ‘true’ or ‘false’. Science is all about hypothesis testing and falsifiability. As new data come in, we update our models, because “all models are wrong, but some are better than others”.
Are there tits above the sign?
Whatever you think of Tyson, this should not be a controversial statement. There’s a lot of willful misrepresentation going on in the comments.
Tyson isn’t saying “everything any scientist has ever said is true.” He’s saying that science, by its very nature, keeps what is true and discards what isn’t. It is a continuous process of iterating towards more absolute, provable truths, and chucking bullshit in the bin. ScienceTM is never 100% true at any time in history, and never will be – but it is the only structure that self-corrects towards provable facts instead of that which is most convenient to believe.
In the words of Tim Minchin, “you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to work? Medicine.”
You know what they call alternative science that’s been proven to work? Science.
It is mostly true until we find a better explanation.
To all the people arguing in comments, I think this is more directed towards the people who claim shit like “earth is flat” and not a bunch of quantum science stuff, for our understanding can be write or wrong Subject to more evidence.
That’s weird, I thought science was a process by which we learn rather than a collection of fixed dogmas. I must be some kind of rube.
The good thing about science is the scientific method. Neil should look it up. And then talk about all those scientists who, while using science, were actually wrong because they believed their own bullshit.
Religious folk will say the same about God(s)
Well.. not quite.. It’s the sum best we’ve got.. soo far.
Neil has become a populist for the rationalists
Science is true?
Science is a means to an end, a method of discovery. It is neither true, nor false.
It is used in the pursuit of truth.
except when its wrong…..which is a lot cause we are always finding out new things which change science.
And that’s exactly why I don’t like Tyson, cause this statement should be more like “The good thing about Science is it’s true, unless you can prove it’s not”
Ish…
As long as you understand that science is based on *models* of reality and that each and every model has it’s own limitations, then yes, it’s mostly true….
No, it’s not true, nor is it difficult to argue with that. The argument is simple – science isn’t based on truth. Even mathematics is based on axioms, which are, by definition, “a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true”. So, it’s believed to be true and is unverifiable. Similarly, neither theory of relativity nor quantum theory are ground truths – those are theories that best describe their fields and subset of observable phenomenons. Ground truth, which is our reality, likely do not behave mathematically, mathematics and theories are used to describe some of it. Like, if you get a pencil and a ruler and draw a line – you may say it’s a straight line to describe it. But it is not, it’s pieces of graphite crumbled on top of cellulose with rather jagged and blurred edges, that when looked from far enough looks like a straight continuous line. But even that is just a more verbose textual description, whereas ground truth is – there’s no line whatsoever, only ideas that are imagined by me at the moment of writing this comment, and another ones imagined by you at the moment of reading it.
I would say, science is not as much about truthfulness, as it is about understanding and curiosity. People, who look for truth in science, might get disappointed by cutting edge theories of which there’s plenty, that contradict or invalidate each other. But curious people who look to know more about our reality will always find science and knowledge fascinating, even if some theories would be proven to be false, that means that there’s some new evidence that falsified said theory, that there’s something new to learn and new ways to describe reality.
True science is frequently being challenged and changed.
Cool sign though I guess.
He is an asshat who just loves the sound of his own voice.
Fuck this arrogance. Guy should take an introduction class to the philosophy of science.
That sounds very unscientific.
Not surprised that NdT said it.
And before that, Earth was the center of universe and the sun circle around Earth.
Debunked geocentric model.
Says the guy who floats his wild opinions as facts..
The religious, the spiritual, and the conspiracy theorists can make the same exact claim, though. Any belief can.
What’s actually good about science is its willingness to be disproven and re-written when new information is presented. (Or, that’s how it’s supposed to be, at least.)
The funny thing about this post are all the intellectuals who just can’t help to explain shit that never needed to be explained. Lots of pedantic fart sniffing in here
Science is literally a set of logical rules which if followed strictly, leave you with a statement that is not false or otherwise contradict every proven not to be false statement. It is for the imperical evidence of thousands of years of applicated methods derives from these statements in which no one ever successfully proved one of them to be false.
It also holds a protocol for review of statements that have been proven to be false, and make it subject to improvement such that they’ll fit the interior of the observable universe.
The mere success of the application of these statements is indicator for science to be THE method that gets as closest to reality.
Not sure if I’m in total agreement with that cos it implies that if something cannot be scientifically proven then it is not true. That leaves out a lot of life.
Flat-earthers, creationists, vaccinists, they never argue! They know, they affirm!
Their utterances are not opinions, are immutable. Are not true because true is only something that can also be fase. Are timeless certainties.
Oh the joy of never having any doubt!
Wouldn’t that be philosophy not science?
The bad thing about willful ignorance is that it doesn’t matter if something is true because you’re already right
Everything that is true is true, whether you believe in it or not. Science, religion, philosophy, reality, it’s man’s purpose to discover those truths for ourselves. That is the meaning of life.
That’s not even correct but it’s NdT so close enough I guess.
I don’t think Neil Degrasse Tyson ever said that. Science isn’t ‘true,’ science is the best theory we tested until we have a better theory.
But science isn’t a set of data, it’s a method of inquiry, and the only one where you want to be wrong. To rule of what’s false. As opposed to religion, philosophy, or logic.
Well, sort of….
Everything stop making sense when you go Quantum.
much of science is hypothesis.
True…
A lot of theories too… which they re not facts.
Twenty bucks says Elon cuts his funding.
Also, science doesn’t care about your feelings.