Reporting on Science (Part 2) – extended with Elise Andrew of IFLS and Bill Nye

Photo Credit: PBS.

You Can Also Listen On

About This Episode

Now extended with a new 10 minute interview about creationists, science deniers and trolls with Neil, Chuck, Bill Nye the Science Guy and Elise Andrew of the popular Facebook page, I F***ing Love Science.

In the conclusion of Neil’s interview with veteran science journalist Miles O’Brien, the two discuss the inherent conflict between the goals of true journalism and corporate America. You’ll hear how Miles was finally able to convince CNN that the climate change debate was over, or at least, that both sides were not equivalent from a scientific point of view. He describes going to Spaceflightnow.com after CNN fired its entire science and technology division, because “after all, what do we know about the Kardashians.” Learn about the rise of “boutique journalism” in opposition to “Wal-Mart” journalism, and how journalistic integrity is most often found not on network or cable TV, but in family-owned newspapers and non-profits like PBS. Miles also recounts how the use of technology in journalism has evolved over the years, while in the studio, comic co-host Chuck Nice and Neil rip on the overuse of some of that technology, like 3-D holographic reporters in the 2-D medium of TV.

NOTE: All-Access subscribers can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: Reporting on Science (Part 2) – extended with Elise Andrew of IFLS and Bill Nye.

 

In This Episode

Music in This Episode

Related Episodes

Episode Topics

  • rcivit

    Hm did the podcast get mixed up with that interview with the former CNN science yournalist you did a while ago? This week and last week’s podcasts seem to be reposts of that interview and not what the title of the podcast claims.

  • Philipp

    Maybe 95% are wrong and the 5% are right. How about that? Maybe you should learn something new.

    • sheldonc

      The 95% are wrong? And you know this because….?

      • Philipp

        I am not the one who has to proof anything. If you think you have to spent trillions of dollars to save the world, the burden of proof ist on you.

        • Huey Stewart

          Worlds not dead. Checkmate.

          • Addam Miller

            The world wouldn’t have been without the mythology either. Persistent and concerted efforts over thousands of years by those in power to control (through fear) the populations is not proof of validity. It is proof of effectiveness only. The Bible (for example) is really nothing more than a retooling of other ancient belief systems made to fit (poorly) together in 1 book. Really, it’s closer to being an ancient version of the Brothers Grimm fables than anything remotely representing reality or proof of existence of any deity, let alone the God of the Abrahamic faiths.

          • Philipp

            People love fairy tales 🙂

          • Philipp

            The global warming alarmists claim we have to remove the co2 from the atmosphere to stop the climate from getting out of control. As if the climate has ever been stable.

    • Ben Foster

      There is no “maybe” there irrefutable evidence. And those 95% realise that.

    • Lomus.

      Or. maybe the 95% are paying attention and the 5%, who statistically tend towards being religious fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists regarding all the major conspiracies, would rather live in their little fantasy bubbles than come crashing back to reality.

  • startalkradio

    As with last week, we have added 10 minutes of new content to both previously aired episodes. As I pointed out last week to someone else who didn’t read the descriptions, we take matters of accuracy very seriously. When you say “not what the title claims”, did you read the copy on the page that describes the episode? It is entirely accurate as advertised, as are our descriptions of the show on other channels. It did not get “mixed up with that interview with the former CNN science journalist you did a while ago” – it is the episode you refer too, as described, extended with a new interview as described in the title.

    • Addam Miller

      Suggestion, maybe….if you’re going to add extended content, make it separate? We. as fans, get excited to hear the new episodes each week. When we hit play and hear an interview we have already heard (and can hear again whenever we want due to this format) it’s a serious wtf moment. (btw, still love the program)

    • cash1981

      Then perhaps you should have used a different title, to make it apparent.

  • jville juggernaut

    I love science, and I love God. What does that make me?

    • startalkradio

      A StarTalk Radio fan?

      • jville juggernaut

        I am more of a Neil Tyson fan in general lol.
        All of your Netflix shows are amazing and inspiring.
        Stephen’s answer works for me.
        I am all for letting God defend himself, so far no one has proven to me he doesn’t exist. Only theories.
        Which leads me to the question about a specific theory, the Big bang. Are there other theories that rival the big bang? Is the Big Bang pretty much accepted as today’s fact? Has anyone (excluding religion or any other controversial non-scientific thing) ever challenge the big bang theory to being wrong (in a scientific stand-point)?

        • Johnathon Stobie

          Every scientist that has looked at the big bang theory has challenged it, that is what science is. finding the most plausible reason that fits the circumstances we know of.

        • Addam Miller

          You do understand how burden of proof works, right? Especially if you;re talking about the Christian God. The only “proof” for existence is ancient recycled, reworked stories from previous belief systems. Now, I’m not trying to bash your faith, only trying to get you to realize that it’s on you (the person making a positive claim of existence) to prove that what you claim actually does exist. It’s great that you enjoy science. But, how much trust in a scientific journal would you have if it contradicted it’s self multiple times in the first couple pages? Fair assumption would be that you would throw all the information provided out as “bs”. All I’m saying, is take the open-mindedness that allows you to love science and apply the same thinking and tools to “God”. It doesn’t hold up.

          • jville juggernaut

            Burden of proof only applies if I am trying to prove anything to you, which I’m not.
            What if I told you I don’t need the Bible to be a christian? There were christians before there was a Bible.
            And there is certainly a lot more to God than a book, but telling that to the scientific field is preposterous. But before this continues any further let it be known I came to talk about the Big Bang, not about God. There’s enough political nonsense on the internet these days.

          • Addam Miller

            Burden of proof applies when you make a positive claim. Not just simply if you’re trying to convince. So the answer would be no, you don’t know how it works. If I claim there are goblins under my bed, even if I’m not intending on convincing you, you’re going to ask for proof before you can believe the claim. You made the claim that God exists. Then, through context attempted, loosely, to align this God as an alternate hypothesis to the Big Bang theory. Also, you don’t get to introduce a subject to a conversation then declare you don’t wish to discuss it. Especially on the internet. Don’t want to discuss it, don’t mention it. Lastly, now days…you do kinda need the Bible (New Testament) to be a Christian. It’s kind of your only source for Jesus, the entire basis of Christianity (being a follower of Christ). Without that book, you have no reference for the entity you follow. Yes, there where Christians before the Bible…but what you’re failing to aknowledge is that those Christians…existed either at the same time as Jesus presumably did or shortly thereafter. Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re going to read the majority of this post. Using the evidence that you apparently only read the first line of my previous one.

    • Tim

      Confused and conflicted?

    • Stephen Chu

      independant thinker and open minded.

    • Philipp

      What if god hates you? 🙂

  • Glen

    im a Huge science buff. i also love god and i feel you guys seem to put all men of faith in the same box

    • sheldonc

      Truly, there is room for both if you want or need to. I have friends who understand science and its goals, while using their religion to keep them grounded, humble, hopeful, spiritual and connected to others. I can respect that. What I can’t respect is when people use their religion as a cudgel to hit other people over the head. The Young Earthers, Creationists, climate deniers are the ones who are using a ancient tome full of interesting, ancient stories to guide their modern thought processes. Would you use a Greek scroll to guide a modern appendectomy?

    • Philipp

      God doesn’t care about you.

      • Taxil Necrobane

        And you know this how? When was the last like you asked him?

        • philipp1981

          He/She only exists in your mind. I don’t have a problem with that 🙂

  • IFLS banned me from their facebook page because they published a post selling molecular necklaces and I wrote on that post if they would consider having a separate fanpage for advertising their marketable contents. It was a simple feedback with no hate speech or violence, but I get banned for just expressing my opinion intended to help improve a fan page I appreciate so much? This page has 19 million subscribers and there are loads of people posting offensive words, spam messages left right center… and I get banned for a simple feedback that contained nothing offensive or hateful? It was just that IFLS has its reputation for promoting science and that is exactly the reason most people are subscribed to the page – to keep up primarily with the progress in the frontiers of science and technology rather than any marketing venture advertising for necklace and t-shirt. It is shocking that a fanpage like IFLS that uphold science which is inherently open to criticisms and innovation, cannot take a simple feedback. How can they ban me just because I asked if they can keep science and marketing separate? I love this fanpage so much! Everything is going worse day by day…midterm election, justice system.. everything.

    • anon

      I like it too, but I have noticed that they have like 80% accuracy for facts, to much is just plain wrong/myths and lies which is a real shame.

  • jville juggernaut

    Do you have any examples? Is there a second place theory that people talk about?
    I just want to feel like the big bang isn’t today’s “the Earth is the center of the universe and that’s a fact” theory of today. A few centuries ago we KNEW the world was flat, and today we KNOW the big bang is how it happened.
    Saying everything came from one little ball of energy that just bursted into exsistance just isn’t enough for me. What made that energy? What set up the playing field for this event to happen?

    • Martin

      Check the background cosmic radtation please (probably through Wiki), that definitely proves it (along other things). Also you should note that it is a “scientific theory” not a hypothesis. A hypothesis means just an idea how it should work or a mathematical model that could describe reality, whereas theory is what makes predictions which are then confirmed repeatedly and by independent scientists over the world. Even you can measure the cosmic background radiation at your home…

  • Philipp

    You didn’t even read that.

  • Philipp

    Now that’s just slander. Anything else?

  • Amber

    The mix of science and god in the comments opens the opportunity to talk about the double slit experiment. I knew of the experiment, but I didn’t realize that there are many people that believe this proves the existence of God. I don’t know what I think of that, but I find the experiment very fascinating and I would love to hear what Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks of this experiment.

  • dsm

    Listening to you guys trying to fathom science trolls/climate change deniers, I’m wondering if you have any comments on the study by Lewandowsky and colleagues pub in Psychological Science. It’s titled “NASA faked the Moon Landing–Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax.”

  • William Lincoln

    If there is a ‘BIG BANG’ in deepest space, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise, or BANG?

  • Stephanie Morgan

    First time listening in, I’m looking forward to being a weekly viewer!

    • startalkradio

      Welcome to the party, Stephanie!

  • Pablo Neves

    I’d love to try Nature Box, but I live in Brazil!

  • Leonard L. Davis

    I love the show. If nothing else it is a refreshing breath of reason bundled with facts in an entertaining format that almost any one can relate too. As a later commence astronomer at age 64 (Well almost an astronomer, I’m getting my AA this spring) I find the show fascinating, informative, and fun. Thank you for doing this. Ah! Thinking, that spark of curiosity followed by reasoned critical observations is like a breath of fresh air in a smoking lounge, keep up the good work.

  • Taxil Necrobane

    I can see why he likely didn’t read your post as it is a thinly veiled rant against those of Christan belief system and not about other possible reasons why our universe came to be.

    • Addam Miller

      Except that my “rant” was about burden of proof. Demonstrating that you, also, failed to actually read the comment.

      • Taxil Necrobane

        I have read the line of comments here and you are ranting as well as everyone else. Or at least sounding very angry and uncivil. Ironically it seems different arguments going on here and people are not connecting up on them. I’d be laughing if it wasn’t so sad.

    • Addam Miller

      Except that my “rant” was about burden of proof. Demonstrating that you, also, failed to actually read the comment.

You Can Also Listen On

Music in This Episode