Comments on: Big Ed gives BA props

By: justcorbly

justcorbly — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:03:42 +0000

It was an “obvious error”, David, that very likely went unnoticed by 90 percent of his listeners, and, frankly, would have gone unnoticed by 90 percent of teh American population. You don’t really think people know this stuff, do you?

In any case, Schultz’s “error” is not important. What’s important is that he was juxtaposing the rational scientific evidence-based explanation of Earth’s existence with the silly notion that it popped magically into existence 6000 years ago. Schultz is no scientist, and he didn’t have the facts straight, but he knows who’s right and who’s wrong.

As for Olbermann: You’re looking for someone on TV that doesn’t ideas? Good luck with that? Besides, people need to stop seeking vicarious jollies via pundits.

By: David D

David D — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:34:40 +0000

The fundamental point: Schultz, in attempting to correct a foolish woman, made an obvious error about a well-established fact (sorry, ballpark doesn’t count), which #1, made him look like a fool, and #2, gives people like that foolish woman more ammunition to cloud the issue.

Olbermann stealing ideas? What else is new?

By: Booker

Booker — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:04:05 +0000

Did anyone catch Olbermann plagiarizing Plait’s web site while he was panning Sylvia Allen in his “Worst Persons” segment?

Olbermann lifted almost verbatim, including Plait’s mention of the irony of the issue of Uranium mining in the context of the planet being 6000 years old. Olbermann blew it by attempting to taunt Allen about her not understanding “carbon dating”.

It is a bad idea to rely on one pompous, arrogant (in that he lifted material from this site without attribution) dweeb, to call out an ignorant, narrow boob.

I am surprised no one is pounding Olbermann on that bit of blatant theft of ideas.

By: I'd_rather_be fishin'

I'd_rather_be fishin' — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:05:04 +0000

@3 Michael L Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I’m so glad I live in Canada where we do not have stupid politicians…

Must be one of those lucky Easterners with the edjucated politicians. Not like us poor western folk with Ralph Klein (high school never-made-it and former used car salesman).

By: justcorbly

justcorbly — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:38:28 +0000

@46: I listen to Schultz reasonably often. It’s my impression that he does, in fact, admit to factual mistakes. Frankly, I wouldn’t expect him to issue a correction about that “one billion” business. He’s certainly much nearer the ballpark than the silliness uttered by Allen. Besides, 99 percent of the American public has no idea how old the planet is, or how far away the Moon is, or whether ISS orbits at 60 miles, 300 miles or a million miles.

The fundamental point: Schultz is a rational person who will accept evidence of reality. Allen, like any other person who deals with reality via a distortion field of bogus religious dogma, will not.

By: HappyKitty

HappyKitty — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:35:57 +0000

Doesn’t really matter if the earth is 6000, 1 billion or 4.5 billion years old. Humans have only been mining uranium for maybe a couple of hundred years, causing toxic quantities of it to be released into the environment. This woman’s stupidity is in thinking that nothing has changed since before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

By: Corry Lee Smith

Corry Lee Smith — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:05:22 +0000

One billion? Hey, I wouldn’t let the host off the hook so easily. Just because astronomers are giddy when they get something pinned down to within an order of magnitude …

By: David D

David D — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:47:27 +0000

@45 justcorbly–

Those are nice opinions, but you really don’t know if Schultz will “accept the new knowledge and move on” or that “Schultz is interested in learning.” Maybe you have some facts to back up what you are saying.

If Schultz is so interested in learning, aren’t you troubled by the fact there apparently has been no correction issued by Schultz?

By: justcorbly

justcorbly — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:53:51 +0000

Here’s the difference between Schultz and Allen: Neither knows the currently scientically accepted age of the Earth, but, if corrected, Schultz will accept the new knowledge and move on. Allen, on the other hand, will accept only that which accords with her beliefs. In other words, Schultz is interested in learning but Allen is interested in believing. Sadly, Allen sees learning as diminishing believing.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:53:39 +0000

42. GKopy Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am

Keith Olbermann? Eww. Hardball eh, okay. Frankly I think all mainstream media does a piss poor job. Especially when it comes to space and science.

By: Randy A.

Randy A. — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:40:43 +0000

Senator Jelly Brain made another mistake that hasn’t been commented on: she says (paraphrasing) that since the Earth has been OK for the last 6,000 years with no environmental regulations it will be OK in the future if we ignore the environmental effects of our actions.
Somehow she missed noticing the obvious signs of present environmental degradation, and the fact that there are now 6.7 billion people sharing the planet.
In previous posts to the Bad Astronomy blog I have advocated for more / better education. That would help Ed Schultz and other political commentators. But clearly this woman is beyond help…

By: GKopy

GKopy — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:28:02 +0000

Glad you got free promotion on Ed’s show.

As liberal as I am, I really don’t care for Ed. He spends the show screaming and name-calling. Kind of juvenile, but I guess it sells ads.

I prefer Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. And of course, Hardball.

By: David D

David D — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:05:11 +0000

@SionH #34–

” . . . but 13 – 14B is usually close enough for most topics.

I guess for Ed Schultz that would be 3-4 B.

By: Art

Art — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:52:45 +0000

I love the blog.

The snide commentary, on the other hand, I could do with out. Why does everyone have to approach it as if they were the scientists who made the findings? Anyone with a computer and fingers can use Wikipedia. Thanks Phil for ignoring most of it.

@sion h-
Your comment didn’t have an emoticon, so how are we supposed to know you’re being facetious?

By: Lewis

Lewis — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:59 +0000

This is basically why I’ve labeled myself Libertarian. I can’t deal with the religious nuts that have infiltrated the Republican party. Besides nearly every quiz I take puts me right down the middle anyway

To watch someone say that with absolute seriousness just confounds me. I had a teacher in school that refused to teach evolution. Oh, yeah, she was a SCIENCE teacher. What? Did I miss something? How do you teach science and not believe it?

It’d be like a moon hoaxer teaching about our findings on the moon… bwa ha ha!

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:48:25 +0000

SionH -

Yep. My bad. I’ve had about 4 hours of sleep in the last 36, so I’ll bust out the fatigue excuse.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Miss C – disregard my goof, please.

By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Torbjörn Larsson, OM — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:32:07 +0000

So the host is off by 0.66 orders while the senator is off by 5.88 orders.

Put that way it doesn’t look like much of a difference in errors. They are still within the same order of order of magnitude.

… um, what were we discussing again? Oh, “carbon-dating” the Earth to creationist satisfaction?! Never going to happen. It isn’t an order of magnitude error, it’s a category error, faith vs facts. That “6000 years” vs an actual age isn’t really comparable in any way, sort or form.

But sure, the factual error that it is masquerading as is bugging me too.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:23:41 +0000

You forgot to mention being mentioned in this CNN article at the very end! Don’t let it go to your head! http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/17/moon.landing.hoax/index.html?eref=rss_tech

By: TechyDad

TechyDad — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:20:45 +0000

He could have been more accurate with a slight alteration. Instead of “we know the earth is a billion years old”, he should have said “we know the earth is billions of years old.” This way he could have been accurate without needing to be precise. Still, like many here, I’m willing to cut “a billion” more slack than “6,000.” “A billion” is probably just one quick explanation away from getting it right. (“Actually, the age is around 4.5 billion.” “Thanks.”) Six Thousand is – more than likely – never going to get it right. (“Actually, the age is around 4.5 billion.” “That’s not what Genesis says!”)

By: SionH

SionH — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:07:34 +0000

@Jay
~13.7B for the universe is the current figure, but 13 – 14B is usually close enough for most topics.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:01:59 +0000

The stunning part, in my opinion, is that her totally off-hand drop of the 6000 year comment suggests that she’s either unaware that anyone disagrees with it, or else is so consumed by the arrogance of ignorance that she doesn’t consider any other position worthy of acknowledgement.

Miss C – roughly 6B for the universe, 4.5B for the Earth seem to be the usual numbers cited these days in casual conversation. I’m sure someone else can sharpen those up.

By: DWW

DWW — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:49:45 +0000

I always find it just a bit amazing that people are so willing to dismiss science and the evidence that as been produced for the last 100 years or so. How did so many people, get to positions of power or access to media coverage with such twisted beliefs in the physical world around us? What went wrong in the 60′s and 70′s that allow our education system to produce such people?

By: William

William — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:46:05 +0000

@SionH
I was forced to chuckle. Good one.

By: TheBlackCat

TheBlackCat — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:12:58 +0000

I think Tim’s right, a factor is a special type of multiplier that is a component of the original number, like the prime factors of a number, which when multiplied together the correct number of times give you the original number. An order of magnitude is a multiplier of ten. When you say “raised to a factor of four” is different, it would be the number raised to the fourth power, which is neither the normal use of “factor” nor is it equivalent to “order of magnitude”. It would be 1e36, not 10 trillion (1e13).

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Factor.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrderofMagnitude.html

By: SionH

SionH — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:04:17 +0000

If we were feeling especially generous we could give Sylvia this one, as technically she is correct.

The Earth has been here for 6000 years, she just left off the billions of years before that when it was ALSO here.

She didn’t say “only 6000 years”.

Ah, who am I kidding….