Galileo and the Science Deniers

Science deniers have been with us for a very long time. Though Galileo’s quest to prove that Earth orbits the sun was correct, he eventually recanted his belief as punishment for heresy. Livio describes parallels to our modern world where, even 400 years later, some people assail science when it conflicts with their ideology.

Please join us as Brian gives us a preview of his full discussion with Mario Livio and his new book "Galileo and the Science Deniers"

Watch the full interview on Brian Keating's Channel:

Buy Mario Livio’s books here:

Please subscribe to Brian Keating's Channel!

Visit Brian's website and join his mailing list for fun giveaways:
Follow Brian Keating on Twitter:
Follow Brian Keating on Instagram:

#LiveAstronomy #DeepAstronomy #AstroBookshelf

Join our Chat on Discord here:

Follow DeepAstronomy on Twitter:
@DeepAstronomy

Watch Tony's Twitch Tuesdays on Twitch:

[tfer]

1:25:08 "If you've unsubscribed from the channel, I understand. I probably shouldn't talk like this on the channel."

Yes, you should. Conviction in one's beliefs is not a threat. You and I disagree on some aspects of science denialism. I am a climate sceptic. My reasons ARE science, and the lack of it used in the hysteria regarding AGW.

However, to hear someone speak their mind, dropping F-bombs included, without the varnish of social or political correctness, is exactly what's needed. We attempt to self-censor, trying to be as bland and non-offensive as possible, and it's destroying actual communication.

Thank you Tony, for a refreshing insight into your passion. We aren't going to agree on everything, but your perspective, unvarnished as it was, was appreciated.

[danhei]

Tony I have even MORE respect for you because of your rant. I will admit I was hoping you would rip the flat earthers a new one, but you gave some very valid points on their mind set for sticking to their opinions.
The art of the rant is a true gift, you did well.

[shanecreamer]

For Tony: Here is the list of the Habitable zones with citations

Known Current Habitable zones as of 2019
- Water habitable zone
- Ultraviolet/Radiation habitable zone
- Photosynthetic habitable zone
- Ozone habitable zone
- Planetary rotation rate habitable zone
- Planetary obliquity habitable zone
- Tidal habitable zone
- Astrosphere habitable zone
- Electric wind habitable zone
- Milankovich cycle zone
- Stellar magnetic wind zone
- Carbon dioxide zone
- Carbon monoxide zone

 
For host stars with an effective temperature more than 7, 100 K (7, 100 °C above absolute zero) or less than 4, 600 K, even for just microbes, a team of four Chinese astronomers showed that the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones will not overlap. This may seem like a fairly wide effective temperature range, but it is narrow enough to eliminate all but 3 percent of the Milky Way Galaxy’s stars.
 
Japanese astronomers Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya established that the zone of overlap is even narrower including the metallicity requirements of the Host star, this leaves less than 1 percent of our galaxy stars as candidates for bacterial life. Advanced life has even more stringent requirements.
 
Scientific Articles:
- Jianpo Guo et al., “Probability Distribution of Terrestrial Planets in Habitable Zones Around Host Stars, ” Astrophysics and Space Science 323 (October 2009): 367–73
- Rory Barnes et al., "Tidal Limits to Planetary Habitability, " Astrophysical Journal Letters 700 (July 20, 2009): L30–L33
- David S. Smith and John M. Scalo, “Habitable Zones Exposed: Astrosphere Collapse Frequency as a Function of Stellar Mass, ” Astrobiology 9 (September 2009): 673–81
- Jun Yang et al., “Strong Dependence of the Inner Edge of the Habitable Zone on Planetary Rotation Rate, ” Astrophysical Journal Letters 787, no. 1 (May 20, 2014): id. L2,  doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L2.
- Yutong Shan and Gongjie Li, “Obliquity Variations of Habitable Zone Planets Kepler-62f and Kepler-186f, ” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 6 (May 17, Gregory S. Jenkins, “Global Climate Model High-Obliquity Solutions to the Ancient Climate Puzzles of the Faint-Young Sun Paradox and Low-Altitude Proterozoic Glaciation, ” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 105, no. D6 (March 27, 2000): 7357–70,  doi:10.1029/1999JD901125.
- Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya, “A Simple Evolutionary Model of the UV Habitable Zone and the Possibility of Persistent Life Existence: The Effects of Mass and Metallicity, ” Astrophysical Journal 833 (December 2016): id. 293,
- Glyn Collinson et al., “The Electric Wind of Venus: A Global and Persistent ‘Polar Wind’-Like Ambipolar Electric Field Sufficient for the Direct Escape of Heavy Ionospheric Ions: Venus Has Potential, ” Geophysical Research Letters (June 2016): doi:10.1002/2016GL068327
- Glyn Collinson et al., “Electric Mars: The First Direct Measurement of an Upper Limit for the Martian ‘Polar Wind’ Electric Potential, ” Geophysical Research Letters 42 (November 2015): 9128–34, doi:10.1002/2015GL065084
- Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. I. Orbits and Rotation States, ” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 2 (January 16, 2018): id. 60,  doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa301; Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. II. Climates of G-Dwarf Planets in Dynamically Hot Systems, ” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 6 (June 4, 2018): id. 266,  doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac214;
- Hans O. Pörtner, Martina Langenbuch, and Anke Reipschläger, “Biological Impact of Elevated Ocean CO2Concentrations: Lessons from Animal Physiology and Earth History, ” Journal of Oceanography 60, no. 4 (August 2004): 705–18,  doi:10.1007/s10872-004-5763-0.

[IntuitiveLeap]

I'll recommend a book to you that I found to be very helpful: Science & Sanity, by Alfred Korzybski. You can find it freely available online, since it is beyond copyright timeframes being written in 1931 or thereabouts.

[bigbrownsound]

I will watch this again. Thanks for sharing your opinions!!!

[juliahenriques]

The only answer to a lack of trust in science is more science. Universal scientific education from early childhood is the key for humanity to survive itself.

[danhei]

I am not bring up topics that would bring misfortune on anyone. I must remember everyone is a person and everyone has their own beliefs. Unless they are hurting someone it should not matter to me.

[LarsRyeJeppesen]

Ricky Gervais once said: "If God exists, why did he create Ateists?"

[TheDanEdwards]

A little bit of pushback: the likes of Dawkins are *not* "doing damage to the scientific cause". I'm not exactly sure that we can easily define whatever "the scientific cause" may be, to begin with. But even more so, Tony's assertion of "belligerence" by some (e.g. Dawkins) strikes me as disconnected to the nature of science denial in our contemporary society. This assertion by Tony is too much like moving the blame for some who deny science to celebrity scientists who are willing to publicly call out atavism in their society and be involved in socially controversially implications of science. As an alternative I'll offer that science deniers today (who are not doing so simply for selfish wealth reasons, e.g., coal executives denying AGW) is a reactionary movement against the increasing complexity and inter-connectedness of our society.


And in regards to science denial as a matter of public policy (i.e., a government policy of some sort): when Brian was discussing that climate change is denied (by policy), Brian tried to make it sound as if evolution was not denied. But looking at the history of both local and state governments in the US, it is clear that there have been official efforts to deny evolution.

[sns]

Poor logic - everyone should decide what s best for themselves - if others are worried then they should stay indoors or wear a mask and gloves when they go out but they should not impose this criteria on others

[vimalramachandran]

I think you're getting it wrong about science. There's no such thing called "scientism". Science works with testable hypotheses. If a claim cannot be tested or falsified, then it isn't science. So your rant that science cannot explain love or morality is meaningless because no testable hypotheses can be formed for them. When people like Hitchens and Dawkins say science is our only way of knowing, they mean the knowledge we can attain by testing and falsification. In other words, science uncovers objective truths, whereas things like love and morality are subjective matters that could vary from person to person or among different societies.

[Jenab]

Tony, I think that I disagree with you in regard to the scope of science. I believe that it has application to truth in a broader sense than you claimed it did. Let's consider your own example, "Why do I love my wife?" Your motive for finding reasons to love your wife is perfectly well suited to scientific study, in particular within the field of evolutionary biology. The specific reasons you do find depend on what you observe in your wife that is admirable and evokes your respect.

Now let's consider your other claim, that morality is a field of truth that isn't subject to scientific inquiry. I disagree here, too. Morality evolved among humans as an aid to survival. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level. The purpose of morality is survival, first and above all else. The highest aim of a proper moral system is to ensure that the group that practices it continues to exist, _in such a fashion that its prospects for continued existence is not diminished, but, rather, enhanced._

Why is survival the highest value in a proper moral system? Because nothing matters to the dead. Because only to something alive may anything else be good.

Not all moral systems are equally good. Some moral systems are better than others in a performance sense: in doing what a moral system ought to do. All else being equal, two groups practicing two different moral systems will see one group making the greater number of serious mistakes on account of imperfections in their moral system, suffering the consequences thereof, and becoming the loser in whatever rivalry had been going on between them.

Nature itself decides what the tenets and precepts of proper morality are. Nature itself is the source of correct knowledge about morality, just as it is for, say, the mechanics of force and motion.

Which moral systems are best isn't for us to say. It is for us to _discover_ by the same methods that serve us well as we attempt to discover anything else. That method involves observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory... observation, hypothesis, experiment, revised theory... repeat until truth is found.

[veronicats]

I have difficulty listening to anyone that says "you know" every other sentence. Especially if they claim to be an author. SMH!

[Cheesesteakfreak]

Who is this person and why is he using outdated and long disproved arguments for religion from the 1970s?