Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[patman]

But I have seen part of it, and I comment based on that . There are after all a few chapters which are available to view for free, I cannot watch the rest of it without paying. However I also know in part what is contained in the unseen sections because the guy signposts what he is going to talk about in chapter 1 (which I can view for free).What if I saw the opening 30 minutes?

Then you can say you did or didn't like the first thirty minutes. It happens all the time, people say the first half of the movie was slow and then it picks up at the end, or the first thirty minutes were great but the ending ruined it. But if you only saw thirty minutes and that's it? No, it isn't fair to critique it. Your opinion doesn't matter until you have seen a majority of the film.

I don't know why you would be confused. You can watch portions of it online, but the entire video is over an hour long, almost two hours if I remember correctly. You are more than welcome to say the previews don't impress you, but you go beyond that and say:

Hmmm the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers then he does. Basically he equates "we don't know how that happened (but we've got a few hypotheses)" with "impossible to happen", given that our understanding of solar system formation is based our observation of other solar systems in states similar to what is predicted in the model that line of reasoning is highly questionable.

You have no way to be able to say that when you've missed a majority of the video. You are just guessing and being prejudice, I might add.

 

[Tyrathca]

Then you can say you did or didn't like the first thirty minutes. It happens all the time, people say the first half of the movie was slow and then it picks up at the end, or the first thirty minutes were great but the ending ruined it. But if you only saw thirty minutes and that's it? No, it isn't fair to critique it. Your opinion doesn't matter until you have seen a majority of the film.

Well I disagree on this sentiment. If something is consistently a colossal failure for a significant stretch of time then I reserve the right to dish out early judgement on it. After a while the likelihood of a drastic change in quality diminishes significantly.

Furthermore if someone says something stupid I will call them out and say they said something stupid, I don't need to listen to them speak for another who knows how long. Unless they come back and add to their point significant detail then it will remain stupid (and if they did so then they would be stupid for such poor structure in their communication).

I don't know why you would be confused. You can watch portions of it online, but the entire video is over an hour long, almost two hours if I remember correctly. You are more than welcome to say the previews don't impress you, but you don't say that, you say:

You have no way to be able to say that when you've missed a majority of the video. You are just guessing and being prejudice, I might add.

Of course I can say that. That is exactly what I observed the guy on the video did in the sections I saw. In the improbable event that he significantly reduced his logical fallacy usage in the unseen section that would still not invalidate my point.

 

[patman]

Well I disagree on this sentiment. If something is consistently a colossal failure for a significant stretch of time then I reserve the right to dish out early judgement on it. After a while the likelihood of a drastic change in quality diminishes significantly.

Furthermore if someone says something stupid I will call them out and say they said something stupid, I don't need to listen to them speak for another who knows how long. Unless they come back and add to their point significant detail then it will remain stupid (and if they did so then they would be stupid for such poor structure in their communication).

Of course I can say that. That is exactly what I observed the guy on the video did in the sections I saw. In the improbable event that he significantly reduced his logical fallacy usage in the unseen section that would still not invalidate my point.

Tyrathca, why are doing this? We are talking about your review of a DVD you never saw... and your review isn't an opinion based review, this is a falsifiable review. Either it says x y and z or it doesn't. We can prove that by it says x y and z or it doesn't simply by watching it.

This is a documentary that is 105 minutes long. You are quick to judge the entire video based on viewing the introduction is 9 minutes, the Jupiter chapter is 14 minutes long. Based 23 minutes you draw the conclusion that the rest of the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance."

I really don't understand why you defend that position when you have never seen it? You said you can judge something is stupid without listening to the whole argument "Unless they come back and add to their point significant detail then it will remain stupid"

Which is funny, because you have NO idea what else he may have said! Not even a clue.

OK, you have proved great bias and prejudice. There is no point in me adding anything to your own words, they stand on their own. Lets just focus on the portions you have seen.

Here is a quote from the Jupiter video. Tell me, stupid or not?

"Jupiter is the largest of all planets, but results from Nature now reveal the embarrassing fact that we know next to nothing about how -or where- it formed."

 

[Stripe]

And of course the parts that are free to watch contain actual information that is used to build the presentation - stuff that a rational, reasoned and civil discussion could be built on.

 

[patman]

And of course the parts that are free to watch contain actual information that is used to build the presentation - stuff that a rational, reasoned and civil discussion could be built on.

That's the hope anyway

We'll see how it goes if he answers my last question from that last post...

 

[Stripe]

I'm waiting for OEJ to continue our discussion. :thumb:

I see you there, Jack!

 

[Jukia]

This is a documentary that is 105 minutes long. You are quick to judge the entire video based on viewing the introduction is 9 minutes, the Jupiter chapter is 14 minutes long. Based 23 minutes you draw the conclusion that the rest of the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance."

/QUOTE]

If those 23 minutes are full of "We don't understand this therefore goddidit" arguments, can anyone expect the remaining 82 minutes to be anything else? One would expect the good parts to be in the free sections to sucker people into buying the rest.

 

[Stripe]

QUOTE=patman;2724066]This is a documentary that is 105 minutes long. You are quick to judge the entire video based on viewing the introduction is 9 minutes, the Jupiter chapter is 14 minutes long. Based 23 minutes you draw the conclusion that the rest of the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance." /QUOTE]If those 23 minutes are full of "We don't understand this therefore goddidit" arguments, can anyone expect the remaining 82 minutes to be anything else? One would expect the good parts to be in the free sections to sucker people into buying the rest.

Everything you said is wrong because you messed up your quote tags.

 

[GuySmiley]

Everything you said is wrong because you messed up your quote tags.

If Jukia can't handle quote tags, why should we believe anything he says? Its such a stupid, sloppy error. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding in basic communication. I'll no longer trust that what he's saying is even his real opinion.

 

[Jukia]

If Jukia can't handle quote tags, why should we believe anything he says? Its such a stupid, sloppy error. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding in basic communication. I'll no longer trust that what he's saying is even his real opinion.

well yeah, but at least I know that sound does not travel in a vacuum. Unless of course you magically convert it to light. That would appear to be the argument that YEC's use to suggest that god just put all the light in place in one fell swoop 6000 years ago---magically.

 

[GuySmiley]

Tyrathca,

Why are you bashing a video you haven't even seen? It isn't rhetorical, I really want to know WHY you would do that? You seem smart enough to know how ignorance disqualifies one from a credible opinion, yet you seem to think your two viewings gives you enough to draw a conclusion on the other one hour and ten minutes of the video.

This behavior is par for the course. Look at the thread title. It says "Real Science Friday." In Jukia-Alate-(and now Tyrathca)-land that means you don't have to look at a source to criticize it.

 

[Jukia]

This behavior is par for the course. Look at the thread title. It says "Real Science Friday." In Jukia-Alate-(and now Tyrathca)-land that means you don't have to look at a source to criticize it.

Actually in Jukia-Alate-Tryathca land you need to have an understanding of science before you make videos about it. That is my complaint based on what I watched.

And thanks for top billing, although Alate and Tryathca have much more cogent and thoughtful comments than I. But I figure as long as I can provide more substance than Stripe I am ahead of the game.

 

[patman]

This is a documentary that is 105 minutes long. You are quick to judge the entire video based on viewing the introduction is 9 minutes, the Jupiter chapter is 14 minutes long. Based 23 minutes you draw the conclusion that the rest of the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance."

If those 23 minutes are full of "We don't understand this therefore goddidit" arguments, can anyone expect the remaining 82 minutes to be anything else? One would expect the good parts to be in the free sections to sucker people into buying the rest.

Jukia. Please. Tyrathca is no psychic, and from my own viewing of the DVD I know the assumption is wrong.

Bottom line, the purpose of a preview is to give you a taste, not the entire meal... Tyrathca acts like he even had the desert even though I am here telling him he's eating the wrong meal!

What's really funny is watching you defend him :chuckle:

 

[patman]

...based on what I watched.

:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

as long as I can provide more substance than Stripe I am ahead of the game.

You've got a lot of catching up to do.

 

[The Barbarian]

Tyrathca is no psychic, and from my own viewing of the DVD I know the assumption is wrong.

So how about trotting out the arguments you think are most persuasive, so we can see them? This is a message board, not dueling videos.

 

[patman]

So how about trotting out the arguments you think are most persuasive, so we can see them? This is a message board, not dueling videos.

The Barbarian, do you not think that discussion is going on?

Maybe if we can get beyond the intro and Jupiter video... so far none of the Atheist have shown genuine interest. They just want to play with our heads and pretend to be know it alls.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Barbarian, do you not think that discussion is going on?

I don't watch videos on message boards as a rule. Just tell me what you think the best arguments are (or all of them, if you like). And we'll go from there.

Maybe if we can get beyond the intro and Jupiter video... so far none of the Atheist have shown genuine interest. They just want to play with our heads and pretend to be know it alls.

If so, too bad for them. But tell me what you think is most persuasive about the video, and the evidence for it.

 

[Tyrathca]

This is a documentary that is 105 minutes long. You are quick to judge the entire video based on viewing the introduction is 9 minutes, the Jupiter chapter is 14 minutes long. Based 23 minutes you draw the conclusion that the rest of the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance."

Fascinating, for one you assume I only saw two chapters despite more than that being available to view for free and I think I even commented on points in more than two of the chapters... Second of all your reasoning unless you have left something out would mean someone who watched 104.5 minutes of the video would not be allowed to comment because they hadn't watched the last 30 seconds which might contain all their earth shattering argument.

And regardless if the first 23 minutes is an argument from ignorance why can't I say that he relies heavily on arguments from ignorance? I'd have thought approximately ~1/5 of the time spent would qualify for use of the term heavily relies.

You said you can judge something is stupid without listening to the whole argument "Unless they come back and add to their point significant detail then it will remain stupid"

Which is funny, because you have NO idea what else he may have said! Not even a clue.

I do because he signposts and labels his chapters, if he comes back to those points later it is hidden within a chapter not dedicated to such and would be a stupid structuring of the video.

OK, you have proved great bias and prejudice.

Pot meet kettle. I'm consistent with how I judge things, I'd be extremely surprise if you everything in life the way you expect me to treat this video. But calls for special treatment of creationists is nothing new.

Lets just focus on the portions you have seen.

Isn't that what I commented on in the first place? Didn't I specifically point out examples of what I was talking about?

Why not actually put forward a comment based on what I criticised rather than continuing your ridiculous rant about whether or not I can criticise?

 

[Stripe]

Why not actually put forward a comment based on what I criticised rather than continuing your ridiculous rant about whether or not I can criticise?

Already answered:

Hmmm the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers then he does. Basically he equates "we don't know how that happened (but we've got a few hypotheses)" with "impossible to happen", given that our understanding of solar system formation is based our observation of other solar systems in states similar to what is predicted in the model that line of reasoning is highly questionable.

No, it doesn't.

It also see he doesn't address the biggest problem in astronomy for creationism, the speed of light and the distance of objects, but instead focuses only on the solar system. The theory of relativity is basically an auto-win against young earth creationists, unless they are able to show ground breaking new physics which would win them a Nobel prize.

The starlight problem is probably the best evidence against the YEC model. If you'd like to discuss it, feel free. :thumb:

But it is kinda off topic. :chuckle: