Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Richard Dawkins Takes Down Anti-Science Republicans" video.

  1. +nitelite78 He is infamous and makes a lot of noise, but he has hurt people in understanding science. Nothing in science is a fact. Nothing in science is proven. As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. It is that doubt that drives scientist like myself in doing more work. We are never completely sure on anything. Building on that some more Dawkins tries to connect science and religion and use science to attempt to squash religion. They are completely separate issues. Not related. Religion is faith based. You can be religious and scientific at the same time. Several of my colleagues are. What I recognize is that Dawkins, in the 80s was ok, but since the 90s has been an embarrassment to science.
    6
  2. +Jonathan rubin As a scientist myself Dawkins is an embarrassment to science.
    5
  3. +JK JK Where did I ever say I denied science? I study science for a living. I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. I have a huge interest in people understanding and appreciating science. People like Dawkins give it a bad name. At the same time Dawkins is a biologist. As members of physics and physical chemist put it, they are "scientist" (in reality they aren't, society just claims they are hints the quotations).
    3
  4. +Alan Rhodes The pure fact is that if you were to take a physicist and place them in an advanced biology class they will figure it out. If you were to take a biologist and place them in an advanced physics class they will fail. Biologist lack a lot of skills to actually do science, especially the physics which is the base of all science. On may skill is the ability to do math. You give me a book in evolution and I can figure it out and pass the class. You put Dawkins in Classical Electrodynamics with Jackson and he will struggle and fail.
    2
  5. +nitelite78 Science does nothing to squash religion. Religion is based off of stories to establish faith, or some sort of belief. Things with little, if any evidence that give people meaning in life. Science is based off of doubt, developing theories which predicts how things work in the world and supporting evidence to such theories to progress man kind.
    2
  6. +nitelite78 A theory is supported by evidence, not facts. One comes up with a theory and comes up with evidence to support it. If there is not enough evidence to support it then that theory is not reliable in making predictions. In my work alone we have a theory and come up with evidence to support it. Others have tried to say otherwise so we come up with more evidence. That is how science progresses. I study physical chemistry and I am a PhD candidate.
    2
  7. +Rogred All I will be doing is giving supporting evidence to gravity, there will still be doubt. Do you doubt quantum tunneling? Trying running through a wall. Just because you can't tunnel through doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    2
  8. +Kuypers125 Science doesn't prove anything. What you have is a theory that gives predictions and we use that theory until another model comes along that has more supporting data. You need to study more science.
    2
  9. +Kuypers125 Never use the word "prove" in any way when talking about science.
    2
  10. +Kuypers125 Support is the word you should use. Prove means without a doubt. There is always doubt in science. My Chemical Kinetics book by Steinfeld has a part where it says you can't disprove anything. I will have to find it but I know it is in there. So no, I am not trolling, I am stating what should be said. And it isn't just me that has a problem with that word, several scientists do a well.
    2
  11. +agnosticgo In politics nobody is anti-science. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, no republican wants to die poor. Considering how science leads to innovation and wealth creation they support it. That is why under the Bush administration spending in science went up.
    1
  12. +Sane Rebel I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry and I don't believe in evolution.  I don't believe in anything because believe means to have faith, and when talking about faith you are talking about a religion then.  As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.  I criticize Dawkins a lot for wanting to go as far as believe in evolution.
    1
  13. +Sane Rebel No it isn't. It is a play of words.First of, what do you define as climate?   If you want to consider the time scale of 4.6 billion years then there has been zero change.  Now if you want to break it down then yes, the climate has changed by what we define it to be.  Beyond that there really isn't much else to it.
    1
  14. +Sane Rebel That's cool.
    1
  15. +IntellectEvolved Actually I do know what the word theory means.
    1
  16. +Sane Rebel Wow, you study biochem. You are almost a scientist....almost but not quite.
    1
  17. +IntellectEvolved If you disagree with Richard Feynman then fine, but the fact is science is driven off of doubt. Without doubt we would not have had great experiments such as the Michelson-Morely experiment or advancements in quantum mechanics.
    1
  18. +Sane Rebel Why does it matter?
    1
  19. +Nguoi Dai Viet Science doesn't prove anything.
    1
  20. +Daniel Martinez nothing is proven in science. Before the Michelson-Morley experiment people were sure that light traveled through aether because at the time waves needed a medium to travel through based off of other evidence.
    1
  21. +Daniel Martinez Science doesn't prove anything. All you did was give supporting evidence. Prove means without a doubt. There is always doubt in science. Dawkins is a fool, a man who had his 15 minutes of fame and now is going way over. As a scientist I support the theory of evolution as a theory. That means there is doubt. For the record, as a PhD candidate in physical chemistry I don't believe in evolution or gravity. The reason why is because unlike a religion I can't dedicate myself to such faith.
    1
  22. +Headless Eyes I know, it is sad. The issue is that I don't even consider him an actual scientist. I would love to see him try to read some of my physics textbooks. I would love to see him go toe to toe against Richard Feynman if he was still alive. Dawkins is all talk and no ability.
    1
  23. +John Dossey Evolution isn't a fact. Nothing is a fact in science.
    1
  24. +Randy Hollinger Yes, because it has a lot of supporting evidence. Now explain to me where gravity comes from?
    1
  25. +Brayden Born If you really understood general relativity you would see there is a lot we don't know.
    1
  26. +Brayden Born That in science there are always levels of uncertainties.
    1
  27. +Sweederland Johnson Sorry that you are not that intelligent then. Maybe when you actually study science for a living you will understand and appreciate it more.
    1
  28. +John Dossey I study science for a living as well. Unlike Dawkins I study actual science in that I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. Dawkins just studies biology.
    1
  29. +mannymmv Biology isn't a science in that it doesn't explain much or solves any problems. You can take a physicists and put them in an advanced biology class and they will figure it out. You can take a biologist and put them in an advanced physics class and they will fail. There is a reason why those who study the physical sciences don't really regard biology as a science.
    1
  30. +dre The base of all science is physics. In several universities biologists are required to take physics where physicist don't have to take biology. If you ever hung around the two you see stark differences. Even in just chemistry you see a difference between physical chemists and organic chemist. Physical chemist are problem solvers and actually explain how things happen, life scientists don't.
    1
  31. +dre Also many physicists have contributed far more than you or me. So what is your point?
    1
  32. +UsernameFECKLE It all comes back to physics. How do biologist do any type of structural analysis? Through spectroscopy which ties back to physics. Surgery? Most of the technology used today comes down to physics. As I said there is a reason why biologists are required to take physics in every university but physicists are not required to take biology. So no, biologists do not due "difficult shit". That is why we have a more biologists than physicists, people like to take the path of least resistance. A believe me, a physicists myself I am during research in biological materials, I picked it up very easily. In the end it all starts with physics.
    1
  33. +UsernameFECKLE And no, you were not too harsh. I am just smart enough to know when someone is butt hurt as opposed to realizing the truth.
    1
  34. +Secular Moral Superiority So when I come with a legitimate view and can back it up with experience, your reaction is to plug your ears and say "troll". Real myopic of you.
    1
  35. +John Dossey I said biology, and I backed up my statement that nobody has rebuttal yet.
    1
  36. +John Dossey So unless you can then it is safe to say that I am not a "troll" as the previous poster claimed.
    1
  37. +swaroop kumar I do accept that there is a role for biologists, and I agree with what Richard Feynman said. I just have a problem calling biologists scientists, it is almost a cop out as in they do lack a lot of skills you would expect from a scientist. On such skill is really wanting to understand multiple fields more. A physicists is able to learn new things, even in life science. But a biologist seems to want to be called a "scientist" but is not willing to struggle in understanding quantum mechanics for example, or electrodynamics. I have seen the research biologist do and it is fascinating, but to me it is incomplete.
    1
  38. +Hypogonadism There is a lot going on in biology, but the fact is that it all begins with physics. Biologist don't understand the physics which hinders their progress. A lot changes in biology which is why my research involves a lot of biological systems such as DNA and proteins. But I am able to look and understand them at the atomic level where biologist can only understand them at the molecular level. At that point they are hindered in what they can do where I am working in a field that is growing at a fast pace. If you can study what goes on at the atomic level then you really know what is going on and solve a problem. That is why physicists are problem solvers which is what science is all about. In what way do you feel I don't study science? And also, what does me being religious (which I am not) have to do with it? In my university 10 of us took our PhD written exam. Only 3 passed, the other 7 have to retake them. One that passed is very religious. But I guess since he is religious he does not understand science even though he just passed a written exam on subjects in physics.
    1
  39. +Hypogonadism My area of research involves looking at probes on biological systems, specifically vibrational probes. When two probes close to each other vibrate they are charges vibrating that radiate energy that couples with each other. No biologist can figure out a problem like that because that requires knowledge you obtain from reading Classical Electrodynamics from Jackson. A problem like that was actually on my PhD written examination. A biologist will not be able to understand the forces involved in solvent interaction with these probes, that deals with E&M and quantum behavior. They can give a hand wavy argument, but they can't get into the full detail. I can (and do) take a graduate level biology textbook and figure it out. I can figure out protein folding dynamics and why they occur. If I were to give a biologist my Stat Mech book from Pathria they will not be able to figure it out. So the hinderence I speak of is that biologist see what happens but can't explain why or how in a way that will advance studies. Science is problem solving. What is a problem we have now? Diabetes. My research can help find a way to help people with diabetes. Without physics there will be no biology. How do you think modern medicine is analyzed structurally? While math is a language of physics, something has to work physically. We can't just create any equation we want. And what does religion have to do with it? You have not answer that. Religion and science are both completely separate issues. You can be religious and be a scientist. The fact that you don't know this shows that you are ignorant on both science and religion. Do me a favor, take Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson, the typical graduate level book for that course, and hand it to a biologist and tell them to get to work. See what happens .
    1
  40. +Hypogonadism How, please explain? You said I have no scientific background when I clearly do. To be blunt and honest if you were to put a physicist in a graduate level biology course then they will figure it out. If you were to a biologist in a graduate level physics course then they will fail. So if the only rebuttal is to call me a troll then so be it, it shows that I clearly know more than you to where I can give actual rebuttals.
    1
  41. +Hypogonadism You never explained anything to support you saying that I am "dumb as a rock". My view on biology is not ignorance. Biologist lack a lot of skills when it comes to science. They do jobs that are important but their skills are inferior. A comparison would be of a golfer to an NBA player. They are both athletes but the NBA player is way more athletic. To answer your question, I am talking about the atomic level. You are now going to the nuclear level. Nuclear and elementary particle physics is in a league of it's own. It is not focused on any molecular system as it won't go beyond the atom. At the same time those who study nuclear physics are able to describe the atom which are the building blocks of molecules and on up to proteins and and nucleic acids. " Meaning you claim to study molecules in molecular biology. And was a half assed answer. I asked what have you learned that biologists as Dawkins dont know?" It is not a half assed answer. I mentioned the atomic level and you went to the nuclear level. If Dawkins and I were to go toe toe on something I would admit that he will know more biology then me, but I will know more physics than him. The difference is that I could step into a biology graduate level course and figure it out. Dawkins would not be able to work out of Jackson, or Cohen-Tannoudji or other graduate level physics textbook. He lacks the skills that take years of training to obtain. It isn't about knowing more, it is about having a greater ability to think and learn.
    1
  42. +Hypogonadism What have I done? Why should I expose to you who I am to some stranger on the internet? I have done plenty of work but at this point beyond me exposing who I am personally it is clear you will never believe me. What skills? The ability to break a problem down. The ability to see how something actually works and build on that. Dawkins lacks those skills. If I were to open up my laser system in my lab and show it to him he would not know how it works. I can look in any laser and do a write up on how they work. If I wanted I could apply that skill to biological systems.
    1
  43. +Hypogonadism What do you want me to do to show you what I have learned? In the PhD program you take written exams, do research, write a thesis and defend it. Do you want me to do that? On Dawkins discovery, in medicine, how you do determine structure without some sort of spectroscopy? Spectroscopy developed by physicists. You can scream all you want that I am not a scientist. My degrees, job, and publications say otherwise.
    1
  44. +UsernameFECKLE One, that is one guy. Next, there is a reason why in every single university curricula physics is required for biology majors but biology is not required for physics majors. It was Rutherford that said "all science is either physics or stamp collecting". Rutherford was one of the fathers of quantum mechanics. The understanding of quantum mechanics is the reason why we have almost all of the technology we have today which saves many lives on a daily basis. "Fact: more people fail out of advanced biology than fail out of advanced physics. " Making up facts does not support you claim. If that fact was actually true it would be because biologists simply are not that intelligence. "Fact: more biologists save more lives than physicists." Considering how all science is based off of biology that is simply not true. "Fact: you would likely flunk out of a biology PhD program." You don't even know me but the fact is that I would do well in a biology PhD program.
    1
  45. +UsernameFECKLE If your only rebuttal is a typo on a youtbue comment page then it is safe to say that I am correct on this issue. You are looking at one guy. And if you knew the history of science you will see that research took off due to quantum mechanics. Norman would not have done a fraction of what he did without advancement in technology. Do you want a physicist that saved a lot of lives? Robert Millikan. He is the one that was able to determine the charge of an electron. His oil drop experiment is one of the top 5 greatest experiments of all time. It has helped pave the way for the technology you use today. What about Wolfgang Pauli? He was the one that discovered that elementary particles have spin. With this knowledge the MRI was created which is a vital instrument in healthcare. You pointing at Norman just because he directly helped people means nothing. I can get a boat and go out and save someone from drowning. But if I did not build that build then the person dies. Norman just took what others developed and used it, that is it.
    1
  46. +nitelite78 It doesn't deal with facts. I deals with theories and uncertainties.
    1
  47. +nitelite78 Actually it doesn't. What you just posted is not 100% true. I am a PhD level because I know what I am talking about. Your example of hot and cold water doesn't mean anything. All you did was make a prediction based off a theory from thermodynamics. You then have supporting evidence to that theory. But you never proved anything or shown anything factual. All you did was make a prediction and then gave supporting evidence to it. There is always a level of doubt.
    1
  48. +nitelite78 I will say this about Dawkins. He is a biologist. Us physicists (I am a physicist by trade working with a physical chemist) call biologists "scientists". We say it that way because society sees them as scientist, us physicists don't. You see scientists are problem solvers and thinkers. Dawkins isn't like a lot of biologists. I think you need to study science more yourself.
    1
  49. +nitelite78 You are partially correct. You base theories off of other observations. They build off of each other. The theory with the strongest supporting evidence is the one that gets used. The one with the strongest supporting evidence is the one that gives the best predictions. But it isn't fact or doesn't prove anything. The beauty of science is that there is doubt and the ability to change. You are trying to make something concrete and set in stone which is a slap in the face of science.
    1
  50. +Roger Wsy What nonsense did I type? I would love you see you, or Richard Dawkins read and understand Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson, the one book used in all physics graduate programs.
    1
  51. +nitelite78 A little play on words. I don't accept fact in my language as a scientist as several people take it the wrong way.
    1
  52. +nitelite78 I do have a problem with it. Plus I don't use the word theory inappropriately.
    1
  53. +nitelite78 And my advice is that you don't indulge in a discussion with science with an actual scientist like myself, you seem to lack a lot of knowledge in it.
    1
  54. +Roger Wsy What did I cherry pick? I love how you never address me at all. And when did I ever mention the bible? Never.
    1
  55. +Rogred I always doubt gravity. My doubt is not as high as other theories though. We are not completely sure on anything, and there are several things we know nothing about. It is that doubt that drives scientists to continue to do research and progress. You bring up gravity......what is it? An invisible force that attracts two spherical objects? If you were to explain that to someone with zero background in science that would sound similar to an invisible bearded man.
    1
  56. +Sweederland Johnson Yes I am a scientist. As I told another person, please read Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson, solve those problems and then talk to me. You are no where near my level.
    1
  57. +Ryan Tang There could be a chance of an ice cube melting slower in hotter water? As of now we never observed it and there is no other theory that can challenge it. It still doesn't make it fact or proves anything.
    1
  58. +Ryan Tang I know some people believe the stories as literal. I have a problem with those people. But they are the minority, no different then the extreme atheists that exist.
    1
  59. +A Moral Atheist If you want to say that I can buy that.
    1
  60. +Ylze Tyr Didn't I give you an economics assignment? Have you finished it yet?
    1
  61. +C/Gw It isn't a false analogy, mathematically we have a chance to tunnel.
    1
  62. +Ylze Tyr I refuse to answer questions from students who can't do their homework......oh, sorry, that is the college instructor coming out......but please do the assignment I gave you first before you ask for help.
    1
  63. +May the Science be with You What field do you study?
    1
  64. +Ylze Tyr You don't have to believe that I am in school.  That is fine.  Still doesn't change the fact.   You have made it clear that you can't even read introductory textbooks on the subject showing you have never been in school ever.
    1
  65. +Sweederland Johnson You must have replied to the wrong person.
    1
  66. Richard Dawkins is a fool. He was good in the 80s but now he is a troll that is a disgrace to science. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Push your ego aside and realize that. Nothing in science is a fact, and anything you believe in is faith based which is similar to a religion. If you were to ask me, as a PhD candidate in physical chemistry if I believe in evolution I will say no. As the great Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. That doubt drives me to continue to do research and progress. Dawkins mindset is very anti-progressive. Plus, if you take evolution in college you will see that there are a lot of things we don't know. Seems like Dawkins needs to go back to college.
    1
  67. +rahowhero Bats not being birds is a definition determine by biologists. That is why us physicists don't consider biologists as scientist because that is the best they can do. Your other two examples are theories that give predictions, that is all. It isn't a fact.
    1
  68. +Hypogonadism A belief is based off of faith. A theory is a prediction that is based off of evidence. Someone believes in something because they have faith in it. I support something due to the evidence surrounding it.
    1
  69. +Sony Singh That's cool.
    1
  70. +Hypogonadism I have degrees of certainty, but I am not completely sure on anything. No one is. That is why we can't use the word "believe" in science. You support something, but you don't believe it. I support something because there is evidence for it, but I never believe it. I know this because I am a PhD candidate.
    1
  71. +Hypogonadism I am actually not religious, so nice try on that one. I support science due to the evidence behind it and it's ability to change. I support evolution, I don't believe in it. I do that because I know that like any other theory it can change with new evidence.
    1
  72. +Synthh We have supporting evidence, not proof.
    1
  73. +Synthh In science it isn't.
    1
  74. +Synthh No there is evidence. Proof means without a doubt. Science is driven by doubt. We can feel very strong about something but we don't have proof. During a pchem talk one professor quickly corrected themselves when they said proof but switch to evidence saying you can't prove anything in science. In my Chemical Kinetics course it is stated in the textbook that you can't prove or disprove anything. My experience of being a PhD student in physical chemistry is where I come from.
    1
  75. +Synthh You can't disprove evolution just like you can't prove it.
    1
  76. +Kuypers125 What do fossils show? Even at that it isn't proof. Science is based off of doubt and as a scientist myself I find it insulting that you would degrade my field in such a way.
    1
  77. +Kuypers125 No they are supporting evidence. In reality you don't even fully understand and appreciate evolution. Take a course in evolution, it is a lot of work but take it. There is more to it then what you think. In the end it is a theory that gives predictions with supporting evidence. "Also you calling yourself a scientist is an insult to scientists," My peer reviewed publications and acceptance into the PhD program by decision by my committee says otherwise.
    1
  78. +Kuypers125 You can call me Mr. Janitor all you want, it still doesn't change who I am. In fact I do need to get to work and progress on my research with my laser I use.......The laser that is uses a Ti:Sapphire crystal that is pumped by another laser at around 550 nm (green). The Ti:Sapphire laser then sends out pulses into an amplifier that amplifies pulses as specific polarization that is then outputted into an OPA (optical parametric amplification) that makes that amplified pulse, at 800 nm into around 5000 nm, the infared range......woops, got a little ahead of myself. You most likely have no clue how a laser even works to begin with. For that I suggest reading Optic by Hecht in chapter 10. It breaks down the basics of a laser and describes the first solid state laser (the ruby laser) and first gas laser (the He:Ne laser still used today).
    1
  79. +Kuypers125 In reality I typed all of that because beyond just simply saying who I am so you can look up my publications (which I won't do knowing all the psychos out there) I had to really show you that I do study science quite rigorously and can get in depth in a lot of material in it, especially when it comes to my research.
    1
  80. +Kuypers125 Who uses Google+?
    1
  81. +Kuypers125 But I don't put any personal info on it. I see people with "names" on youtube but I don't believe it is their real name. There are a lot of fake accounts out there.
    1
  82. +Bernard Rednix No politician is anti-science in the US.  When democrats try to make republicans look anti-science all they have to point towards is evolution and climate change.  The former is tied heavily on the fact that a large portion of their voters are fundamentalist Christians.  After the primaries topics like evolution does not come up, only during the primaries when they are trying to buy votes of republican voters.  But in reality republicans have invested a lot into science.  Remember, they are the party of "greed" according to the left.  To develop wealth and money you have to advance in technology.  That requires the STEM fields.
    1
  83. Dawkins is a biologist, and members of physics and physical chemist call all biologist "scientists". For the ignorant, we say it that way because society calls them scientists, in reality they are not. Real scientists are problem solvers like most physicists. Dawkins isn't.
    1
  84. +rahowhero You obviously never studied science for a living. A real scientist is a problem solver. A real scientist comes up with a detail explanation of something and develop different tools and theories in doing so. If you compare and contrast biologists and physicists you will see that people who go to biology typically are taking the easy route in science. That is like someone playing semi-pro football and calling themselves a professional football player.
    1
  85. +Kuypers125 Not they aren't. The base of all sciences is physics. The pure fact is that if you were to take a physicist and put them in an advanced biology class they will figure it out. If you were to take a biologist and stick them in an advanced physics class they will fail.
    1