David Attenborough ... the Darwin of our Time

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by RainbowSingularity, Aug 27, 2019.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    My position is quite simple. To compare someone to Darwin is, to my mind, suggesting they have made a major and original contribution to the structure of natural science. After all, Darwin was to biology what Einstein or Maxwell was to physics, or Mendele'ev to chemistry.

    David Attenborough is a very, very talented broadcaster. He is an exceptional teacher, in effect. He is not a scientific original thinker.

    So he belongs in quite a different category from Darwin and the other giants of scientific discovery.

    That is all.

    More than one person has suggested in this thread that I am trying to belittle Attenborough in some way, and speculated about personal motives I might have for doing so. I have no reason at all to do such a thing. But, equally, I am not going to go along with endowing him with attributes he does not possess, just because it has become fashionable to make him into a popular saint.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    There will likely never be another Darwin or Einstein or Mendele'ev who single-handedly stands a whole branch of science on its head. "The Darwin of our time" says more about "our time" than it does about Attenborough.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Isn't he? Pretty choosy also I see in what you read and absorb....
    from WIKI......
    "A fossilised armoured fish discovered in Western Australia in 2008 was named Materpiscis attenboroughi, after Attenborough had filmed at the site and highlighted its scientific importance in Life on Earth.[96] The Materpiscisfossil is believed to be the earliest organism capable of internal fertilisation."
    Yeah I've seen many agenda driven opinions like that particularly with regards to Einstein and other renowned greats. Your excuses/attempted explanations don't hack it exchemist.

    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Yes, that thought did occur to me as well. I found myself thinking who, working within the last 50 years, would I nominate as equivalent in stature to any of these giants of the past. Crick and Watson, who could I suppose have been candidates, were earlier.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    "No living person has done more to make the people of Planet Earth aware of the world around them".

    Time Magazine, naming Sir David Attenborough 'Hero of the Environment' in 2007.

    Here is a video of the great man, in an interview with Brian Cox, and discussing Charles Darwin, a "great" from another era. Like Einstein, David's humility appears to be one of his many qualities............
    "The scientific Father of zoology and Botany as David describes him"......
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    As pointed out now more then once....."A fossilised armoured fish discovered in Western Australia in 2008 was named Materpiscis attenboroughi, after Attenborough had filmed at the site and highlighted its scientific importance in Life on Earth.[96] The Materpiscisfossil is believed to be the earliest organism capable of internal fertilisation".
    and what reaction do we get?
    Aided and abetted by James.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then of course his usual dramatics when confronted by someone opposed to his agenda laden crap....*click* *click* *click*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And he expects to be taken seriously?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    there are only 3 people whom i know & i dont do math
    1 is newton whom invented calculus
    the other is Aristotle
    the 3rd argumentative is Pythagoras

    everything else required the person to study existing material to then change it into something slightly different.

    "original" sounds more like an assertion of an ego position that serves some type of idealism of your own making
    existing student whom is already studying the same thing
    thus no originality possible
    major being "large" is completely comparative
    ending the ability to be original as it must be comparative to existing forms thus having detracted from being the singular original.

    simply by applying your own scientific rigor to what you are using defines your example as completely invalid.

    emotional appeal to compromise instead of being original & factually absolute ... ?

    your own emotional concession

    ... you wish me to compromise to bend fact to agree with your emotional plea.

    "Einstein is equal to Maxwell"
    "Mendele'ev is equal to Einstien & Maxwell"

    where is the equation defining the variable value ?

    here it is
    = emotional plea to remove rigor

    here you apply an unfounded scientific rigor back into the subject to polarize a value that has not been set.
    unless you mean "original"
    in which case you have not provided a definition or example
    unles you mean "emotional appeal"
    soo you define science as a discovery instead of a creative aspect ?

    so david can discover something and be classed as not original(scientific significance?)
    while a different person can discover something and then be called an original creator ?


    emotional plea ... AGAIN !
    very unscientific !
    that wasn't all at all
    you wanted to make an emotional plea to tel everyone they have no right to oppose your assertion of fact about the nature of a Conspiracy Theory to define David as a
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    creationists and evangelicals dislike david because he rienforces evolution simply by his TV series.
    this undermines their ability to individuate humans as being singular in intelligence aspects that appeal to commonalities of simplistic human cognitive development.
    this undermines the culty perverts whom spend all their energy trying to brain wash teenagers

    so there is 2 distinct camps
    climate change deniers
    cultist evangelicals selling creationism and Ego

    cute fluffy baby animals appeals to children and young familys(a-politically)
    evangelicals hate that because that is their target for their scams and perversions.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    We have had more then one "closeted" creationist/IDer on this forum that I know of.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    throwing your political swing vote lot into the same bucket helps save speach writing and TV time
    they can win the same tin foil hate moralists with climate change and creationism as being "agenda" for gayness

    they tag on family values as a leverage to give them un challenged access to young family audience as a "moral dictatorship"

    i dont like to think about it too much because its toxic negativity
    like an open sewer running under your dining table
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

  15. river


    RainbowSingularity be much more clear , please .
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    to gain precision you must be precise
    precisely what are you unable to comprehend ?

    literately throwing ones hands up like a 13 year old saying "its all too much" is not an educated response or attempt to engage intellectually.

    however, some climate change deniers think its quite scientific and seek emotional validation to defer the precision so they may assert their emotional dictatorship to try and emotively re-define the subject.

    be part of the conversation or a cheer leader...(what ever you choose) but do not expect me to validate cheer leading as intellectual discussion.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I see.

    You claimed I forgot something. I told you I forgot nothing. You are unable to demonstrate that I forgot something, but you nevertheless feel entitled for some reason to claim that I have lied.

    On the larger issue about telling lies, it does not follow that because a person tells a lie about one thing that makes them a no-good scoundrel liar whose word on everything is worthless. The context I believe you are referring to is a truism that I stated in a previous discussion, about how everybody lies at one time or another. Don't try to tell me you've never ever told a lie, because that would be a lie. Well - surprise! - I've told the odd white lie in my life, for various reasons, just like you have. That does not mean I am not to be trusted, and I resent your accusation to the contrary.

    What is happening here is that you've got your knickers in a tangle because I moderated you for something or other, so now I'm a bad person in your books. Fine. You don't have to like me. But nor do I have to put up with your childish accusations and pouting. Previously, this same behaviour led to you taking - at your own choice I hasten to add - an extended break from sciforums. Here you are back again, and your behaviour has quickly resumed where you left off. Maybe you're unable to reflect or change; I don't know. But if you are going to accuse me of things, you'd better have something better than a vague hand-wave towards past events or assumed motives. Your childish grudges are a waste of my time - and not just when I'm the target. It's not like you reserve this kind of behaviour just for me, after all; this is a characteristic behaviour of yours. You're old enough to do better than this. Please try.
  18. river

    Geez guy all I was asking is to be more clear on what your saying , nothing more.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    This is ridiculous.
    So, paddoboy rolls out his usual accusation that those who disagree with him are "agenda driven".

    Let's unpack that a little, shall we?

    We might start by asking the following question: when paddoboy says that David Attenborough is a Great Man, does that mean that paddoboy has an "agenda", or not? Is the "agenda" in question one of promoting Attenborough's greatness?

    paddoboy's argument appears to be that when origin, or exchemist, or I, say that Attenborough is a not a scientist, for instance, we are "agenda driven". Our "agenda", presumably, is to cut down the tall poppy because ....? Well, come to think of it, why do we have that agenda, if that's what it is? Is it paddoboy's contention that by trying to bring Attenborough down a notch or two from the lofty pedestal of "the Darwin of Our Time", we are somehow making ourselves feel better about our own inadequacies as non-Darwins of our time, or something of that sort? Is it just sour grapes on our part that we're not as famous or honoured as Attenborough (assuming, of course, that we aren't - you never can tell on the internet)?

    Or maybe our "agenda" is to pooh-pooh anything that paddoboy says, and that's the real problem. Maybe it's not about Attenborough at all. Maybe Attenborough is just an excuse to nay-say something paddoboy said because, you know, we just don't like paddoboy that much. Could it be that?

    paddoboy most often couples the word "religious" to "agenda". So maybe we all have a deep religion-based resentment towards Attenborough, for some reason, and that's why we're so mean about him.

    It's strange that we all have an unspecified agenda, according to paddoboy, but paddoboy himself never has an agenda. As he would tell it, his motivations are all pure and unbiased, and would never qualify as an agenda, I assume.

    Also, notice that, for paddoboy, "agendas" are always irrational - which is why they are usually religious, for him - all religion being assumed to be irrational (that's in no way an "agenda" of his, of course). It follows that if somebody dares to criticise a hero of pad's - Einstein, say - then it immediately follows that that person is most likely irrational in all things, and probably religiously motivated too, when all is said and done.

    For paddoboy, "agendas" can only ever produce "excuses", never truths, which is why paddoboy himself has no agendas. It also follows that we can tell if claims are true or false not by testing those claims against evidence and the like, but by looking for agendas. If we can identify an agenda, then the claims are false. If not, they might be true. Moreover, claiming that somebody has an agenda is sufficient to dismiss any claim he or she might make, no more work needed.

    I started this post by saying this is ridiculous, and that's also where I'm ending it.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Back to the thread topic.

    The claim is that Attenborough is the "Darwin of our time".

    So, can somebody please explain to me what comparison is being made between Attenborough and Darwin?

    Are you comparing their level of fame?
    Are you comparing their scientific contributions?
    Are you comparing the level of respect they get from some other people or group?
    Are you comparing their historical impact?

    Would any of Attenborough's defenders as "Darwin of our time" like to actually put an argument as to why he should be regarded as the "Darwin of our time"?

    Remember, the thread invites us to compare Attenborough to Darwin. Merely saying that Attenborough has achieved this or that, in itself, would not make him the "Darwin of our time". The claim is that the two men are comparable in some important sense.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member


    on a slightly different yet similar frequent online behaviour culture
    i notice the popularity of female face comparibility delineation
    (my current fascination)

    how do we define the nature of the individual item/thing when we have nothing to compare it to ?
    does comparison of things become the lesser of 2 known values to the sense of self actualised mental formulation of a zero point sum of mental consciousness ?
    is the self able to individuate to a point that renders it wholey equal to non comparibility
    have we reached the end of the era/stage of human individuality ?(evolving or devolving).

    i am at a loss that an intellectual learned human can not fathom a similar sense of the nature of value to human science between David & Charles
    meanwhile such people watch television and use computers and declare what is and isnt science via their ability to obtain it.
    irony ?

    none so much as present in todays climate change reality for the species
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2019
  22. Curious layman Registered Member

    I thinks it's important to remember that Attenborough is actually more of a narrator on these wildlife documentaries, he rarely visits the majority of the animals he's covered. It's the talent and skill of his camera crew that makes his documentaries so good. The unsung heroes if you like. Add to that his brilliant voice coupled with his vast knowledge on the subject, and it's this what makes him a great broadcaster. He should be compared to other broadcasters like Carl Sagan, not scientists like Darwin.

    Darwins influence on the 20th century is incomparable with Attenboroughs contributions. There not even close. But that doesn't diminish Attenborough in any way, they just work in different fields, both as equally important, but different nonetheless.

    (To me)
    Darwin~ scientist
    Attenborough ~educator
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2019
    exchemist likes this.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    My point is that nobody in this thread has yet suggested how their contributions to human science are to be compared.

Share This Page