38 Replies to “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science and Politics

  1. “Dünyada her şey için; uygarlık için, hayat için, başarı için en hakiki mürşit ilimdir; fendir. İlim ve fennin dışında rehber aramak dikkatsizliktir, bilgisizliktir, yanlışlıktır. Yalnız ilmin ve fennin yaşadığımız her dakikadaki devrelerinin olgunlaşmasını kavramak ve yükselişini zamanla izlemek şarttır. Binlerce sene önceki ilim ve fen dilinin çizdiği kuralları, şu kadar bin sene sonra bugün olduğu gibi uygulamaya kalkışmak, elbette ilim ve fennin içinde bulunmak değildir. Çok mutlu bir duygu ile anlıyorum ki; söz söylediklerim bu gerçeklere erişmişlerdir. Mutluluğum artıyor. Şöyle ki söz söylediklerim, öğretim ve eğitim altında bulunan yeni nesli de gerçeğin ışıklarıyla doğuşuna sahip olacak şekilde yetiştireceklerine söz vermişlerdir. Bu, hepimiz için övünmeye açık bir noktadır.”
    M. Kemal ATATÜRK.

  2. Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the importance of keeping science and politics as far away from each other as possible

  3. Lol well it's 2017 and now we have the opposite running this shit show: a real estate developer that should have stuck to developing real estate and all his appointed buffoons.

  4. So nasa, actual science, bush was ok, but murdering babies and global warming(fake science) bush was bad?

    Republicans win again.

  5. Thats irony: the guy talking on the cell, and using gps to drive his car, is the same who believes in flat hearth…
    I'm pessimistic about politic support to science.

  6. no neil, don't sneak into people's homes taking their technology!!! you'll just be confirming the stereotype. (I'm kidding, I know what he means )

  7. Why doesn't someone like Neil run for President? Make a lot of sense to me that one of the smartest and most influential people in our country, be our leader..

  8. Republicans are pro-technology and anti-science. Their consistent hypocrisy is stunning. They love science when it creates new goods/markets, but hate it when it might have a negative effect on certain goods/markets ( even though it's an opportunity for new goods/markets/innovation). I'm a one question voter: do you think creationism should be taught as an alternative to evolution AND physics (because literal translations of The Bible call for some crazy physics)?

  9. I think the real issue is innovative thinking, not the $s flowing. If 10 times the $ flowed, yet one had to prove Christian concepts true through research, To get funding, science would be akin to hell on earth! If however science was viewed as a evolutionary process, in which the more mistakes one can make per hour, the faster one can learn and evolve via elimination of false ideas, humanity would benefit instantaneously in ways we cannot yet begin to imagine! Our true obstacles are not Dollars, but thought frameworks! We have to lose our fear of failure to learn. Failure is but course correction. The more course corrections per second the closer science resembles a heat seeking missile! Michelangelo Alexander Sir-Rhine

  10. If you just look at how much money was put into certain projects? i don't consider that an accurate, complete gauge by any means. If you cripple education your crippling the future of science, if you create policy based of weird religeous consipracy theory crap about how stem cell research will lead to too many people living longer lives and destroy society, your not just crippling science but our goverment, nation, logical thought and behavior in general. This is the president who balked and gave a hack religeous reply in answer to avoid saying how much of his policy was his fathers doing. I have no idea how many things he might have put funding into not based on actual personal choice but just because some advisor's special interests pushed it on him. I think so violently undermining multiple societies, governments, economies probably also prevents science from advancing as it could under better circumstances.

    The only notable advances i am aware of that really benifit us was being able to put ideas to the test under combat conditions and bring certain medical practices into use faster. But that is not true innovation, just an increase in the speed of deployment of ideas that are already in existance. Not to say that any conflicts we were engaged in were slightly justified by that.

  11. Science should be what everyone thinks about…Love that quote people out here are delusional paying attention to stupid shit.MTV,hollywood ect…

  12. Sorry Neil, I saw your recent presentation in Seattle and with all due respect, it was a total waste of money. You did not teach any science. You stood up there and rather talked about yourself and a bunch of other details that were not inspiring. I was very disappointed.

  13. Pple of us you re so stupid you must be lucky you got clever government in Russia its unfortunately on opposite

  14. If politicians were replaced by scientists, there would be no such thing as politics. As politicians have retained their roles, science has been threatened. Science is anti-political and politic is anti-scientific.

  15. I would argue that Bush's no child left behind act had horrific indirect effects on science. By increasing funding to top schools and decreasing funding or shutting down poor performing schools. Today schools now prepare students to take standardized tests, not critically think.

  16. Tyson is going to hell…ah well..serves all sinners right for being so smug when they say "we don't know how, we don't know why"
    Then tell us how things work in the universe…..If you don't know how an electron "jumps"?…the rest of your science is not worth hearing about.
    You are a liar for satan.

  17. 2:47 I think that question was worded incorrectly for how he seemed to answer it. I don't think they wrote what he was actually asked. >_>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *