The Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers: Katharine Hayhoe

[smartalek65]

@bubbah skepticalscience is NOT an impartial nor reputable source of facts concerning climate change. Remember the Royal Society's motto-take nobody's word for it.

[bubbah]

Another word: Compartmentalization.

[bubbah]

Two words: Cognitive. Dissonance.

[TheyCallMeMrPig100]

Great! I'm glad this series included an openly religious scientist. We are not as rare as people would think.

[oueeiijayii]

Climate Change can be understood through the garden of Eden. Tree culture for food (nuts, seeds, fruit, greens, sap, edible bark), water, materials, energy, air, soil & wildlife is 100 X more productive per human energy invested & products / area harvested. Artifice (human-centered) vs natural scientists are innumerate (difficulty with life's calculation) so retreat into simpler mechanical equation. See Indigene Community

[4thcoming]

She's both hot and smart! ;)

[epowillie]

Thank you Ms. Hayhoe!

[WAKeele]

One really has to put the blinders on to be a scientist and be a Christian. Being religious is one thing, but being an active member of a Western religion tarnishes your credibility and your overall ability to think critically about a topic.

I grew up in the South [of the U.S.] and with a strong Christian background. My study of history alone left me at a point I could no longer be a Christian. My study of science took me to being Agnostic. Middle of the road until proven in my book.

[4thcoming]

@WAKeele I disgree about that. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome project is a Christian and can think critically as can many Christians I know including myself. Others come to mind such as Alister McGrath, William Dembski, Richard T. Wright, Katharine Hayhoe, Sean McDowell, Jonathen Wells, Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason, William Lane Graig, Lee Strobel and others like those on youtube and facebook such as FirstFreedomFighter, HonestThiest, acemcdonut2, djchrist15, bassmmbn3, etc.

[bubbah]

@4thcoming Collins can only think critically about certain things. Certainly not religion. It's called cognitive dissonance, and is maintained used mental compartmentalization.

[Hoggle42]

While I applaud the overall message about climate change, I doubt the ability of any theist to be a competent scientist. The two mindsets are simply incompatible.

[JelenaSoph]

Billy Graham? Climate change surely caused by man? This one calls herself a scientist? Sad sad sad :(

[asseeninYOURDREAMS]

a christian scientist?.... *pukes*

[culwin]

Is this planted to discredit climate change?

[XbladeDragon]

Theres nothing WRONG with believeing in God..As an atheist we just have our own perspective of the world. Kudos to her for believing in god AND being a scientist that takes courage. I believe the world is whatever we want it to be because only we control our perspective of the world in itself, She gained the knowlage and choose wat to do with it. If its your mind and your eyes, it's your world..your just living in it with other people..Respect the right of thought and others right to do so... :D

[kjrunia]

To all fellow atheists who, also, accept the premise of climate change/global warming: be nice, please. Thank you. :-)

[MagnusIan]

Stop the hatin', guys. So she's religious, okay. You don't have to get all butthurt about it. And before you start, I'm an atheist and I'm not one of those arrogant "Arguing about it is stupid" pricks. Just be glad she doesn't reject climate change.

[bigboy45454545]

Too bad she's a retarded Christian. Maybe she could say hello to her invisible friends for me. As an Atheist I'm not delusional and I don't have invisible friends.

[Dysentery7885]

garbage

[Coquipirate]

I think it's great that people can advance in science without letting their personal beliefs get in the way. Let's hope people like her can reach out to other christians and help them embrace some rationality.

[AcidRain64]

@Coquipirate I don't.. it bothers me, sometimes scares me, that people can compartmentalize so dramatically as to a) be a scientist and then turn right around and b) actually believe in absurd fairy tales and other things that DIRECTLY conflict with a scientific naturalist worldview. To me, it's like being a strong pro-equality advocate who hates Asian people. Like wtf? If you believe in science, you CANNOT believe in god without either being delusional or misinformed about the facts.

[Coquipirate]

@AcidRain64 Methological naturalism does not equal philisophical materialism. The existence of God isn't just a scientific question. Even if it is intellectually dishonest (which I don't know, given her philisophical education and discipline isn't mentioned here), I'd rather theists and nontheists find common ground in science than find more contentious points in it. There is a greater good here.

[AdmiralCasey18]

@Coquipirate I think it's stupid how she still persists as a blind follower. I'd listen to her if she was talking about the climate change, but once gets into the God and Jesus, I get turned off.

[AcidRain64]

@Coquipirate I think it does. I disagree pretty strongly with attempts to separate the two.. it IS a scientific question. If the god is falsifiable, it is scientific. If it's not, then it's literally not real. It's not just "undetectable"... undetectable means not real. Literally. Not "absolutely," because "Truth" changes.. but literally, it is not real until it is real. The unicorn is fake until it's discovered. Greater good perhaps in short term, but I'd rather address the root of the problem.

[AcidRain64]

@Coquipirate By root I mean that-- religion isn't the problem. Superstition isn't the problem. Those are all subsets of the real problem, and that is the way of thinking that allows people to believe these things at all. It's not just religion, it's ANY superstition including lucky rabbit feet, holy water, alternative "medicine," etc. The list goes on forever... they're all manifestations of the same thing. And I think it's a serious problem that needs addressing. Now. =)

[Coquipirate]

@AcidRain64 I said it's not JUST a scientific question. The scientific method doesn't apply to metaphysics any more than it would to history. Just to run with the history example, most everything verified by the historical method before the steel age isn't falsifiable by the scientific standards. Should we then conclude that most of human history never happened? That's absurd! There is nothing that has proven greater in discerning fact from fiction than the scientific method, but it has limits

[AcidRain64]

@Coquipirate But it is, and it does. Metaphysics that don't correspond in any way to reality, aren't true.. aren't real, aren't actual. They are therefore irrelevant. Whaa?No,we have very good evidence and reasons for believing things about human history. How else are we able to tell what's myth and what probably happened?Let me clarify about the falsifiability.. Gods that are falsifiable, have been. Gods that aren't, are irrelevant.Also,truth is about degrees of probability, not 100% certainty.

[Coquipirate]

@AcidRain64 If you think the historic method meets the level of certainty science would ask for, you're a joke. Go look up why historians believe Socrates existed, or the accounts of the Jewish-Roman wars. The line between true history and myth is indescernable. Much of history is written hundreds of years after the fact, and intergrated with tales of the supernatural. Metaphysics is the basis of reality! Without metaphysics there can be no scientific method!

[ZachariahLogan]

with what evidence? for human activities? I don't trust what people say, just what the evidence (facts) read. You can have a college degree and still be wrong. Trust me.

[bubbah]

@ZachariahLogan You could easily learn about the facts by looking them up on a reputable site. Such as SkepticalScienceDOTcom.

[bobster451]

Reject superstition.

[peopleofdetroit]

I'm always amazed - and a bit troubled by - people who can reconcile their scientific understanding of the world with their superstitious beliefs. An odd phenomenon indeed.

[NOVAonline]

Aristarchus of Samos

[helpvidz]

Who is the scientist she is describing at 0:44 ?