June 29, 2017June 29, 2017

SEWAGE DUMPING ALERT-Know Before You Go – Utilities Kingston

June 29, 2017June 29, 2017

City launches sewage overflow into Cataraqui River | The Kingston Sewage Hole

June 23, 2017

“Janis Joplin – To love somebody”

June 23, 2017

Don’t Buy These Products If You Don’t Want to Support Slavery

June 22, 2017

Planet Priority

June 17, 2017

Watch “Dr Neil Fiore – Fiore Productivity, Overcome Procrastination” on YouTube

June 17, 2017

Procrastination is Not Laziness

CANADA’S PRIME MINISTER AND THE $1.5 BILLION OCEAN PLAN

-$1.5 Billion is not alot of money these days but it is a great start Justin

A message for the world

“We live in a completely corrupted world where every government is just a bunch of businessmen working for a bunch of bigger businessmen and none of them give a shit about the people. The sad fact is no one knows how to change it, because no one knows how to take on the corporations. So I guess we’re stuck with this system until the oil runs out.” Watch below:

The fact is we buy stuff we think we need,but maybe never use.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization | PETA

Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? READ MORE.

Nature (Season 35) – Forest of the Lynx | Press Release | Pressroom | THIRTEEN

Media with life giving impact for those with eyes and a real heart for Mothers of nature.

Prime Minister of Canada – Premier ministre du Canada

REBLOGGED

Neil deGrasse Tyson
What Science Is, and How and Why It Works
NOVEMBER 18, 2016 · PUBLIC
(Re-posted here from the Huffington Post November 21, 2015)
If you cherry-pick scientific truths to serve cultural, economic, religious or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy.
Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history.
The scientific method, which underpins these achievements, can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity:
Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.
This approach to knowing did not take root until early in the 17th century, shortly after the inventions of both the microscope and the telescope. The astronomer Galileo and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon agreed: conduct experiments to test your hypothesis and allocate your confidence in proportion to the strength of your evidence. Since then, we would further learn not to claim knowledge of a newly discovered truth until multiple researchers, and ultimately the majority of researchers, obtain results consistent with one another.
This code of conduct carries remarkable consequences. There’s no law against publishing wrong or biased results. But the cost to you for doing so is high. If your research is re-checked by colleagues, and nobody can duplicate your findings, the integrity of your future research will be held suspect. If you commit outright fraud, such as knowingly faking data, and subsequent researchers on the subject uncover this, the revelation will end your career.
It’s that simple.
This internal, self-regulating system within science may be unique among professions, and it does not require the public or the press or politicians to make it work. But watching the machinery operate may nonetheless fascinate you. Just observe the flow of research papers that grace the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. This breeding ground of discovery is also, on occasion, a battlefield where scientific controversy is laid bare.
Science discovers objective truths. These are not established by any seated authority, nor by any single research paper. The press, in an effort to break a story, may mislead the public’s awareness of how science works by headlining a just-published scientific paper as “the truth,” perhaps also touting the academic pedigree of the authors. In fact, when drawn from the moving frontier, the truth has not yet been established, so research can land all over the place until experiments converge in one direction or another — or in no direction, itself usually indicating no phenomenon at all.
Once an objective truth is established by these methods, it is not later found to be false. We will not be revisiting the question of whether Earth is round; whether the sun is hot; whether humans and chimps share more than 98 percent identical DNA; or whether the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen.
The era of “modern physics,” born with the quantum revolution of the early 20th century and the relativity revolution of around the same time, did not discard Newton’s laws of motion and gravity. What it did was describe deeper realities of nature, made visible by ever-greater methods and tools of inquiry. Modern physics enclosed classical physics as a special case of these larger truths. So the only times science cannot assure objective truths is on the pre-consensus frontier of research, and the only time it couldn’t was before the 17th century, when our senses — inadequate and biased — were the only tools at our disposal to inform us of what was and was not true in our world.
Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth’s rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them.
Meanwhile, personal truths are what you may hold dear, but have no real way of convincing others who disagree, except by heated argument, coercion or by force. These are the foundations of most people’s opinions. Is Jesus your savior? Is Mohammad God’s last prophet on Earth? Should the government support poor people? Is Beyoncé a cultural queen? Kirk or Picard? Differences in opinion define the cultural diversity of a nation, and should be cherished in any free society. You don’t have to like gay marriage. Nobody will ever force you to gay-marry. But to create a law preventing fellow citizens from doing so is to force your personal truths on others. Political attempts to require that others share your personal truths are, in their limit, dictatorships.
Note further that in science, conformity is anathema to success. The persistent accusations that we are all trying to agree with one another is laughable to scientists attempting to advance their careers. The best way to get famous in your own lifetime is to pose an idea that is counter to prevailing research and which ultimately earns a consistency of observations and experiment. This ensures healthy disagreement at all times while working on the bleeding edge of discovery.
In 1863, a year when he clearly had more pressing matters to attend to, Abraham Lincoln — the first Republican president — signed into existence the National Academy of Sciences, based on an Act of Congress. This august body would provide independent, objective advice to the nation on matters relating to science and technology.
Today, other government agencies with scientific missions serve similar purpose, including NASA, which explores space and aeronautics; NIST, which explores standards of scientific measurement, on which all other measurements are based; DOE, which explores energy in all usable forms; and NOAA, which explores Earth’s weather and climate.
These centers of research, as well as other trusted sources of published science, can empower politicians in ways that lead to enlightened and informed governance. But this won’t happen until the people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, author of the StarTalk Book, and Welcome to the Universe, is an astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History. His radio show StarTalk became the first ever science-based talk show on television, now in its third season with National Geographic Channel.

LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Share
13K
8,697 Shares

Choose file
Write a comment…
Melissa Wells
Ummmmm the difference between science and religion is that science can admit when it’s wrong Katie Morris. Your whole rant about how science changes every year is exactly what science is about, learning, testing, ever growing. Science brought you the internet. Science brought you social media. Science brought the phone or computer you’re using. You really need to gain some perspective.
Like839Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Russ Hendryx replied · 69 replies
Tanya Guptill Clapshaw
My 12-year old daughter is at a STEM (Science, Tech, Engineering, Math) conference today. After she met you in Portland over a year ago, she’s been self-motivated to learn everything she can about space and astrophysics. You took the time to speak with her, answer her question about curved space, and give her some advice. THANK YOU. You’ve made her world, and her universe, much larger. Warm regards, The Clapshaws
Like188Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
John Duke Edenfiel… replied · 19 replies
Brian Cosgrove
I really struggle with how so many people either don’t ‘get’ this very simple concept or, worse, choose not to accept this simple, obvious, logical reality.
Like215Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Brian Cosgrove replied · 35 replies
Brian Katcher
Who else wants this man to run for president?
Unlike358Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
James McDonnell replied · 31 replies
Mike Richardson
If more people knew the history of their religion, they would be far less likely to think of their religion as history.
Like126Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Troy D Walker replied · 32 replies
Michel Stevelinck
If you eradicate all humans on earth and restart from the begining, you will most certainly end up with totally different religions and cultures … but science will remain the same because it is how the universe works (gravity, forces, electro-magnetism, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, genetics, medecine, chemistry …).
Like88Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Arvind Gopalaswamy replied · 39 replies
Yeah Okay
This guys had a speech at Stanford university, and a piece of it is on you tube. It’s about naming rights and science being overuled by religion and personal truths in the middle east. Hard to believe that Baghdad was once a haven for science, intelectuals, and free thought. We need more Neil Degrasse Tysons in the world. Every time this guy speaks he blows my mind. Joe Rogan had him on his podcast and it was an excellent interview.
Like47Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Aidan Halloran replied · 9 replies
Jeffrey Smith
The “scientific method” intends to *refute* claims about reality by applying sound reason to the impartial analysis of independently verifiable evidence. Claims that survive the analysis are held as *tentatively* true until new evidence is discovered to refute the claim.

The scientific method is the best way that humans have found for reliably understanding how the world operates.

Every human is born an atheist, and none of them have come to believe in supernatural beings or magic by the scientific method, but only by the unsubstantiated, untestable claims of other humans.
Edited · Like48Reply · More · Jan 26, 2016
Viscrimson Bane replied · 7 replies
Michael Corbin
The kind of ego that gravitates to wealth and power, and the kind of ego that gravitates to science and knowledge, are diametrically opposed when it comes to concern for the common good.
Like36Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Scott McCollum replied · 6 replies
Craig Bryan
Another thing for people to try and understand is that “science” is not a belief system. It’s a way to ask, test, and then answer questions. Too many “religious” people assume it’s a belief system not unlike another religion that’s trying to counter their own beliefs. That is not even close to what “science” is.
Edited · Like61Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Roger Michael Brow… replied · 8 replies
Michael Magill
Exactly! Science is the accumulating understanding of natural processes through study, reasoning and observation. Needless to say if the universe was really only a few thousand years old our ability to learn through the scientific process would be so non existent that our modern technology would never have worked.
Like18Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Kyle Leslie Huxtab… replied · 4 replies
Michael Duffy
Science has done more to advance the human condition since the method was laid out in Newton’s time than all man’s religious hallucinations combined. It’s the only mechanism we have for understanding how the universe really works.
Like35Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Trevor Hamberger replied · 19 replies
Lou Bonkowski
Neil deGrasee Tyson, you are a good man and I envy your meeting with the master of the Cosmos. Carl Sagan left us way too early. Keep on brotherhood, aloha!
Edited · Like18Reply · More · Mar 16, 2016
Lou Bonkowski replied · 3 replies
Paul Akerman
This misses the point of science. Science is not truth. Science is a methodology by which we determine likelihoods by overcoming man’s superstitious tendencies and desire to hang on to preconceived notions. Science is one of the most wonderful creations of man, but believing that it is truth cheapens it to the level of religious dogma. For example, we used to think that kinetic energy was likely to be ½mv^2, and this could have been verified by experimentation of the time, but now we think it to be more likely to be (γ-1)mc^2. The point is determining truth is not the objective of science, determining what is likely with the data at our disposal is.
Like18Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Paul Akerman replied · 4 replies
Cindi Pickering
I figure if computers ever do become self-aware, a small benefit will be they can auto-shut off if someone denies science. Oh, you want to post something on Twitter denying climate change – no more smart-phone for you when your smart-phone shuts itself down or refuses to re-open your Twitter app.
Like12Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Cindi Pickering replied · 10 replies
Robert Carver
I can handle the small questions in life like what does it all mean, what is our purpose and is there a supernatural being or beings who run the Cosmos. The pressing question that lies beyond the realm of science is how do we pick between Kirk and Picard. Both are dynamic leaders who are Starfleet legends who have inspired generations of sentient beings. I just don’t see how we can ever discover who is better… James T. Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard. Science may never provide us a definitive answer.
Like6Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Robert Carver replied · 2 replies
Jerry Locke
Yes. One of the best delineations between science and personal opinions (that include religion). Concisely put and worded so any thinking person may understand. Yet here in comments some folks still cannot get the point.
Like6Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Bobby Delery replied · 1 reply
Scott Benowitz
We have conclusive proof that His Noodleness The Flying Spaghetti Monster hath createdeth the entire universe and all of the life forms contained within over a period of four days. Why can’t “scientists” seem to comprehend this? hyYaaAAaaaAAaaAAaaarrRRRrrrrRRRRrgh thar mayties !!!!
Edited · Like6Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Scott Benowitz replied · 3 replies
Eva Cram
Wow… so well stated! Thank you, Neil deGrasse Tyson. I hope you are putting it on all social media plus an oral version on YouTube, Vimeo, etc. to help it go viral. There are SO many ignorant people in our country that need this basic information. When a small county clerk in Kentucky gets more attention from the news media than Neil deGrasse Tyson, their producers need to be smacked upside their collective heads!
Like6Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
William Cody
Wish you guys would specify “physical science” or “natural science.” Methods of behavioral and social science are not the same and are deeply infiltrated with biases. They routinely do lots of the things that you say that science does NOT do but want to be known as science and treated as science.
Like8Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Bob Greene replied · 5 replies
Alex Schwartz
Thank you Neil deGrasse Tyson. I’ve enjoyed science since looking through a telescope as a child and having you step up and share your wealth of knowledge to us in a way that some(including me, but I love to learn anything new about it) may have trouble grasping(ie Cosmos), is amazing. You keep being you.
Like5Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Kyle William Burnett
Science is made up of knowledge based on facts and what we know, it also helps us get answers we can’t get any other way, religion is a belief, it is based upon a book which has been changed, rewrote and is used as a way to demonstrate and show what someone’s belief is all about, it is not fact it is opinion that is why we have many religions all saying different things & it is why we have science which helps us understand different forms of science.

How stupid must you be to not get this!! SCIENCE is NOT a belief it is FACT, RELIGION IS a belief and is NOT FACT!!

End of! Science has helped us understand the universe we live in and continues to chance based on what information is at hand and from that we can form facts to understand things. Religion has not changed it is based on a book about a person that may or may not excist & yet are willing to kill, rape, attack and discriminate people over something that is based on outdated, unreliable and false information and yet people act like it’s fact.

You can believe in WHATEVER you like it is none of my concern but just remember that your faith is a belief & has not been proven Science HAS and continues to change the way we see the world!

Sadly MOST religious people will try and attack fact, maybe it’s because they know no better and was raised. To hate and hate towards others, maybe it’s because their own faith in religion is not as strong as it used to be and attacks as a way to defend” their own belief, maybe it’s because they think it will help get a place in heaven for hating and attacking something that helps more than a pray who knows, all i know is you can say and do whatever you like it isn’t going to change fact!!

SCIENCE is REAL, RELIGION is FAKE end of discussion!!
Like3Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Kyle William Burne… replied · 11 replies
Chase Mueller
The only issue I have with science as a whole is that to make many truths work, they must make assumptions in thier equations for unknown factors, to make thier theory work. So there for if the thoery is proven true, it is still only true based on those previous assumptions; which means in reality it is just the most provable theory, not what could be the truth. Science, especially mainstream, spreads dogma just as bad as religion. If science didnt preach dogma then schools would say something like “Here are our top theories of how we think the world works, based on these assumptions and math. We inspire you to go out there to help prove or disprove these theories in the search for truth.” But that is not what science does, especially in schools; instead they say things like “This is absolute fact, and you must believe it or else you will fail” that is not a way to help someone learn. That is memorization in fear of punishment. One example of dogma, they say the speed of light is constant, and they will ‘teach’ you that in school, but what they dont tell you is that the observed speed of light fluctuates and that the number they give us as the ‘constant’ is actually the ‘average’. That small fundemental change has huge implications, like for instance, how many theoretical equations use the assumption that the speed light is a constant? When in actuality it is not.

I personally do not believe in any one way about anything. I think everything is possible, therefore I try to test and research everything for myself to decern the truth for myself, instead of being told what truth is.
Edited · Like3Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Russell Popham replied · 11 replies
Jim Gilligan
You are right, Sonne. Furthermore science doesn’t change its mind every year. It adjusts its conclusions from additional data. Unlike “beliefs” it doesn’t start with a “truth” and then goes about trying to make everything fit it. Often I have refused to talk with fundamentalists who start off the belief with the assertion that they can’t be wrong.
Like3Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Ravi Kulkarni
Very good article, but not excellent for one reason. He goes to great lengths to pat his and his community’s (scientists’) collective backs about the objectivity of their profession. What he does not mention and needs therefore some debate is the level of confidence one must place in the particular science.

In math for example, once a theorem is proven, there is no way it could be wrong. Your confidence level is absolute in math. You move to physics it comes down a notch. That’s why you still hear questions about Einstein’s theories etc. It gets further diluted when you move to less “hard” sciences like chemistry.

You get into economics and meteorology and your confidence level is further eroded. The reasons are obvious. The predictions are as often wrong as they are right, but the state of the art is improving.

You get to biology and cosmology and you begin to see how incomplete and crude our understanding is. Here the level of confidence should be much lower than math or physics. And yet you continue to hear self serving arguments from the practitioners about how much “science based” their profession is. It may be science based, but what’s the level of your confidence in what you profess?

Popular scientists like de Grasse Tyson do a very good job of popularizing science. But they do a great disservice to the lay public if they do not point out the differences among the sciences. Perhaps they do not know. Or worse, they do know, but they are as dogmatic about their profession as the unscientific community.
Like3Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Ravi Kulkarni replied · 2 replies
Aaron Eisenbarth
One of the reasons that the general public so broadly fails to accept or trust science and scientists is because the scientific community today is not living up to its own claimed standards anymore.

Experiments are hardly ever double-blind, their samples are laughably small, they’re not repeated enough, and most studies aren’t even from experiemental data, but rather statistical data. I realize that most of that is because of funding issues and the fact that most research is done by private corporations with extreme self-interest in specific results rather than accurate results…but still.

As a result, it all looks the same to the layman, and so they simply pick and choose the claims they find most appealing. Which is why Dr. Oz, Deepak Chopra, various anti-vaxxers and anti-GM croppers, and other quacks and charlatans are still so popular even when they’re outted as the liars they are.

Obviously education is a problem, but even full and accurate science education isn’t enough, because almost all of the science today is equally poorly done.

And then there’s Hawking, who’s pretty clearly finally started to suffer some of the inevitable mental degradation from ALS, but people still hang on his words as if he’s a prophet. Nope, I still respect the hell out of the man and his work has been fantastic, but that time is pretty obviously over now.

And also Kurzweil, who really knows computer technology, just as equally really doesn’t know anything about neurology or neuropsychology. But he still talks about people leaving their bodies and entering computer systems as if nothing would change. Which is absolutely NOT how that would ever work. But people eat it up because it sounds cool. And the rest of the scientific community just mostly lets it all go.

This isn’t the kind of thing where we can afford to let them fail on their own. No one’s paying attention to that. You have to actively put the spotlight on them, AND publicly demonstrate without room for error exactly how and why they’re wrong. Sadly, many hardcore supporters of them will still continue, but most will finally understand.
Like4Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Roger Michael Brown
I want Tyson to keep doing what he’s doing: he’s got masses of people following him and having arguments (which is good; that means that people are actually thinking, which most of the media deplores); he’s a fantastic science-communicator on many platforms; he knows what he’s talking about, which most media-pundits don’t.
Like3Reply · More · Jan 24, 2016
LuAnn S Di Paglia replied · 1 reply
Wb Cochran
This should be required reading for every student , whether middle or high school. Then it should be discussed and eluciated. To paraphrase Plato’s quote from Socrates (cica BC), “I am certain of, i.e., I know, only one thing for a fact and that is, I do NOT know.” Thus, this made Socrates wiser than those who claimed “to know what [in fact] they did not know.”
Like3Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
Mick Mickization
Did you hear the breaking news apparently world renowned Astrophysicsist B,o,B has has made a scientific breakthrough by discovering the world is in fact flat so generations of scientist are wrong B,O,B knows
Like2Reply · More · Jan 27, 2016
Doug Carruthers replied · 1 reply
Judy Cattaneo
Currently watching “Cosmos” again. I’m so grateful for NDT promoting science in pop-media. I adore his enthusium. It’s contagious.
Like12Reply · More · Jan 23, 2016
View next comments…

Bloggy Posts

I don't care what you write,but do be nice about it.Paper trails n mitigating Real Life Events.Free wicker canoes and stained glass hammers ♡ More in Time if Space