Neil DeGrasse Tyson in votive candle form

I can't figure out if this Neil DeGrasse Tyson science-themed votive candle is an article of commerce or not, but man, it should be, oh yes, it should.

I Heart Chaos — Hail St. Neil. (via IO9)

Update: Buy 'em on Etsy


    1. Pretty sure you are right on that, and I am guessing the quote beneath the picture is pulled from this:

      ““Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back. And it’s fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don’t believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don’t believe in science, that’s a recipe for disaster. We talk about the Internet. That comes from science. Weather forecasting. That comes from science. The main idea in all of biology is evolution. To not teach it to our young people is wrong.” “

      1. It’s not that I “believe” in science… I just know that what science says is based on experiments I can double check if i don’t believe something

    1.  We don’t need to know how you got your repetitive stress injury.

      Oh, I see that you are talking about the position of his hands in the picture. I thought you TMI’d us there.

  1. Neil, stop corrupting young minds!  Science isn’t true.  Science could be called the process of finding what is true.  Or we could say science appears to be true, subject to new evidence.  But saying science is true diminishes science.

    And those sheep?  They are black on the side facing us.

  2. I have to disagree with the quote in the picture. Several scientists have said that at least half of what they believed is not true, but they didn’t know which half.

      1. I’m not sure what your point is. Most arguments in science are settled by one side outliving the other. For example, hand washing is considered important because all the doctors who thought it was junk science have died.

        1. To be honest, I’m not sure what my point was either, I just thought it sounded funny!  But I guess my thinking was something along the lines of when DeGrasse Tyson says “Science is true whether we believe it or not” one would query what precisely he means.  Good science?  Current science?  Scientific method or what people call the scientific worldview or philosophy?  Some people find the primary appeal of science in that it appears to offer hard, incontrovertible, nailed-down for all time truths; for others, the appeal lies more in a recognition of the provisional, work in progress nature of knowledge acquisition, the sense that nothing is necessarily true for the long haul, everything is subject to be revised, improved, or scrapped.  There is a degree of validity to both viewpoints (and Tyson’s quote would seem to appeal to the first), but if you are more sympathetic to the Popperian view of scientific method as a self-correcting rather than ideal state of affairs, then a statement like “Science is true” would be a little problematical, or at least oversimplified.  I’ve always enjoyed the passage from Popper where he says that neither democracy or science are ideal states of affairs in themselves, but their virtue lies in allowing us to change things when people really start fucking up.  So I guess my point was a Popperian riposte to De Grasse’s more gung-ho sentiment (which I actually thought was what you were getting at too), combined with a quote from William James that’s always been in the back of my head:  “There is no noncircular set of criteria for knowing whether a particular belief is true, no appeal to some standard outside the process of coming to the belief itself. For thinking just is a circular process, in which some end, some imagined outcome, is already present at the start of any train of thought….”

          And now, my friend, I bet you’re sorry you asked!

  3. I don’t like this quote for the same reason that was already pointing out, but also because I grew up hearing this basic quote from the most closed minded of religious adherents as “The good thing about (my religion) is that it’s true whether or not you believe it to be true”.  It’s a thought stopping mechanism and a communication killer.

    1.  The difference being: science is the name given to finding out how the universe works; an ongoing process of refinement or: religion where you are told how it works; there’s no search for the truth. But I may be wrong: I am still refining the truth.

Comments are closed.