Bill Nye started out doing comedy as Bill Nye the Science Guy. He moved on to doing science programs for children's programming.

Both experiences serve him well when talking to Faux News.

This is my last comment on this video as it is getting old, but I just can't resist.

You want my definition of a rant? Ok, "to speak or declaim extravagantly or vehemently." As the point of your comment was to declaim James Randi, and you did it in a rather bombastic way, I stand by my statement.

Maybe I should also define something else you don't seem to understand:
monotone - a vocal utterance or series of speech sounds in one unvaried tone. Maybe you are tone-deaf, but Randi wasn't even close to monotone in this video. Monotone is how Ben Stein speaks - it tends to be pretty obvious.

Is Randi condescending? At times, but only to those who deserve our condescension. The purveyors of this shit deserve our complete derision.

Now, I would like to know how, from this one video, you decided that Randi believes that the only people at fault are the corporations. He has made a living teaching people to be skeptical and to question the paranormal and pseudo-scientific. He has made it clear that, while most of the fault lies in the dishonesty of the people who push the scams like homeopathy, applied kinesiology, psychic phenomena, etc., people need to be more skeptical and should resist these scammers.

This video was specifically produced to announce his new million dollar challenge to homeopathy manufacturers and his challenge to the sellers of homeopathic remedies so of course he talks more about corporations in this video.

Yes, boycotts would force these companies to stop selling this garbage but to bring that about you need publicity and a million dollar challenge is a good way to get that publicity. Though it would be even better, IMO, if our health and drug organizations (FDA etc.) didn't allow manufacturers to trick people into thinking water was medicine.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I could type a big response to your response...but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you read my response.
Btw, what is your definition of a rant? Mine is to ramble on over the same point without adding significant clarification (i.e. the clarification that I added.)
Here is the abridged version, since reading is not fun for you. Randi blames corporations because he is either ignorant or a suck-up, I blame the people using the medications and the corporations.
^Skeeve:
I could type a big response to your rant... but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you watched the same video.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.

I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.
I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...
This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

I could type a big response to your response...but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you read my response.

Btw, what is your definition of a rant? Mine is to ramble on over the same point without adding significant clarification (i.e. the clarification that I added.)

Here is the abridged version, since reading is not fun for you. Randi blames corporations because he is either ignorant or a suck-up, I blame the people using the medications and the corporations.

^Skeeve:
I could type a big response to your rant... but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you watched the same video.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.

I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.
I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...
This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

I could type a big response to your rant... but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you watched the same video.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.

I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.
I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...
This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.


I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.

I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...

This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

NOOOOOOOOO I already claimed him in fantasy-internet land@$*&!#
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Hot. Science. Guy. melts

Hot. Science. Guy. *melts*

Beakman's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy were both quite good, but I tended to prefer Bill Nye for presenting the information a bit more straight than Beakman typically. But in either case, excellent shows that would be great to see analogs of for future generations.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill, Nye, Science, Guy, Human, Eye, Disney' to 'Bill Nye, Science Guy, Human, Eye, Disney' - edited by kronosposeidon

Since when is Bill Nye a Scientist? I thought he was a comedian from Seattle who developed a cool "Science Guy" persona and schtick.

edit: Okay, according to Wikipedia he has a degree in mechanical engineering, and developed some key components used to this day in aeronautics. All respect to the guy- I love what he does and his ability to communicate scientific concepts to young people is fantastic, but those accomplishments don't make him a scientist.

I've met him too (honest), shook his hand. It was behind the scenes at a BattleBots event when they used to televise them (remember those?). A) He's shorter then you'd think. B) He looked pretty perturbed at having people around him shaking his hand. But who knows, everyone has bad days.

Same event I got to meet Bill Nye the science guy. I'll just say I got to sit down and have a short conversation with him. THAT guy is awesome.

I would have to say *lies because of the 'science' guy at the end implying that this will replace launch tech on the shuttle. I'm fairly sure plasma rockets don't generate enough power for a launch vehicle.

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
The order and certainty, which I thank Science for demonstrating, in the laws of physics and gravity...you can honestly say "gee, neat that it all just came together like that?" Our planet alone would have had to have been to result of 10,000,000 lottery odds occurrences all happening in concert. Nothing was behind that?
You science guys have far more faith than I!


This is the laziest argument based out of complete lack of understanding of science. A Judeo-Christian God is the ONLY explanation for a carbon-based watery sacks of organic lifeforms that depend on oxygen and a specific temperature region.. It must have been God!

Did you ever think there is a 100% chance that we live on a planet that happens to support liquid water and an oxygen rich gaseous atmosphere? And that it isn't a random fluke our planet just happens to inhabit a narrow band of distance from a certain size star? And that the moon provides tidal forces on a mostly water planet? The reasonable explanation is that life developed to suit its environment and NOT that some mystical being created a world for us to inhabit.

You do realize there is life that developed at the bottom of the oceans in high pressure, high temperature thermal vents that uses methane for energy?! Or even silicon based thingys in some volcanic places.

Why would a horrible, inconsistent, editted, poorly translated, politicized book like the Bible be the best (or even good) explanation of anything?
You do realize half of your Bible is a bunch of oral traditions from hunter gather tribes that were adopted and put into writing to make a book that is more akin to a Boyscout Manual then anything else.

If there was a God that inspired a book, why is the Bible so flawed? Why are there so many contradictions and even what we now consider nonsense? Why do you pick and choose what parts of this holy scripture to follow? Why are you not out there stoning people to death as your God commands you to?

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
"... I guarantee you NONE will be able to explain what 'force' brought the earliest point of origin into being. ... Something had to make this little sandbox our universe is spinning in."

Science has made amazing strides in explaining the known universe in just the last few hundred years. There is no reason to believe that everything you are talking about couldn't be explained in the (hopefully) many millions of years to come.


"... I don't see how any legitimate self-respecting scientist could adamantly conclude that there is no God. Where is the concrete evidence for that conclusion? In this day and age, I see SCIENCE = RELIGION in its own right. I've encountered religious nuts in your corner way further out on a limb than I am with my dusty old Bible."

The adamant scientists of which you speak are probably speaking strongly against the Judeo-Christian God. There is no scientific evidence to support such a being, and many internal logical and philosophical contradictions which point to the non-existence of such a being. Any rational scientist would strongly conclude that there is no Judeo-Christian God, but not discount the possibility that some other type of "supreme" being may exist.

Admittedly, there are some freaks who are adamant that there is no possibility of any kind of higher level being, but those people are not practicing good science. You cannot disprove the existence of something simply by lack of evidence, however strongly that may be indicated.

If you see science = religion, then you don't have a good grasp on the definitions. With the proper understanding of science, you will be able to identify when people are not practicing good science by it's relative similarity to religion.


"... To everyone else. Can you honestly take in the astounding sights, sounds, and wonders of the world around us and not at least consider the possibility that this was not all the result of ridiculously improbable chaos? The order and certainty, which I thank Science for demonstrating, in the laws of physics and gravity...you can honestly say "gee, neat that it all just came together like that?" Our planet alone would have had to have been to result of 10,000,000 lottery odds occurrences all happening in concert. Nothing was behind that?
You science guys have far more faith than I!"

This is the classic argument from ignorance. Just because we don't yet know exactly how the universe came to be as it is, that doesn't mean Jesus Christ's daddy made it in six days. And the fact that you seem to think there was a large amount of "chance" that factored into our current existence shows how ignorant you are of current science. We are here because of selective forces, not random chance. There is a huge difference, and you look like a fool to anyone who understands that difference.

And again, even if you label that selective force as "God", you still can't tie that God into the Judeo-Christian mythology in any meaningful way.

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
^JoeDirt
Your arguments were impressive, but fell well short of what I was hoping for.
First: Your main answer to my "gotcha" question was that we don't know and what I'm looking for is probably unknowable. I appreciate the primer on current scientific theory, but I was indulging in skipping to the end. I'm sure there will be mind blowing theories and constructs out there before I die, but I guarantee you NONE will be able to explain what "force" brought the earliest point of origin into being. The whole "we're experiencing an infinite repetitive loop" doesn't get you there. Something had to make this little sandbox our universe is spinning in.
Second: You did manage to provide me one answer I was looking for. By your own words, there is a lot we don't know on the basis of science alone, and what we do know is subject to revision and update. Given that, I don't see how any legitimate self-respecting scientist could adamantly conclude that there is no God. Where is the concrete evidence for that conclusion? In this day and age, I see SCIENCE = RELIGION in its own right. I've encountered religious nuts in your corner way further out on a limb than I am with my dusty old Bible.

Evidence based conclusions. As long as no one can conclude that there is a god, the evidence shows that there is no god.

To everyone else. Can you honestly take in the astounding sights, sounds, and wonders of the world around us and not at least consider the possibility that this was not all the result of ridiculously improbable chaos? The order and certainty, which I thank Science for demonstrating, in the laws of physics and gravity...you can honestly say "gee, neat that it all just came together like that?" Our planet alone would have had to have been to result of 10,000,000 lottery odds occurrences all happening in concert. Nothing was behind that?
You science guys have far more faith than I!


That's just a damn lie. Scientists have NO FAITH. Chances have nothing to do with how the universe is put together. If I roll a million dice in a row, I will get a certain order of 1-6; what are the chances of getting exactly that result? 1.000.000^6 (or is it 6^1.000.000?) in any case, astronomical, but nonetheless I got the result I did. You cannot retroactively apply a theoretical chance. The chance that I did get what I did is 100% because I did get it.

It came together the way it did, because it did. Anthropic principle covers it.

Bmacs27: I'll get back to you when I'm not as drunk as now, but for now I recommend Daniel Dennett's book Consciousness Explained.