rangergirlie
As a kid, I loved watching Bill Nye: the Science Guy in school and developed a love of science that is boundless. This documentary gives you an insight into who Bill Nye, the man, really is, and just how hard he is fighting to keep this world from destroying itself. It's a tiring battle, but someone has to change the world.
mr_v68
Well organized feature that presents the human being Bill Nye. As I see it, the film makers more than adequately covered the life, passion. struggles and conflicts of Mr. Nye without being saccharine or condescending to his detractors. Glad I contributed to this effort.
u-25699
Growing up outside of the US I never had the pleasure of watching Bill Nye on TV, or in the class room. Instead I had a biology teacher, Mr Andrews. In my first ever lesson with Mr Andrews, he filled a beaker with a highly acidic (pH of 2), solution. He then dunked his finger in the solution, and put it in his mouth. He then asked the class why his mouth wasn't burned. My friend had observed that the finger he dunked in the acid, was not the same as the finger he put in his mouth. While true this was not the correct answer, you see we were asking the wrong question. The question should not have been why his mouth wasn't burnt, but rather why his finger was not burnt? The answer, the liquid was just water.This demonstration really cuts to the core of what makes science special. It is the investigation, the examination of available evidence to come to a conclusion. We assumed that our teacher was trustworthy, but we had no reason to come to this conclusion. We were not acting as scientists, we didn't examine the liquid ourselves. Furthermore, this demonstration shows the power of a leading question. We were asked why his mouth didn't burn, implying that the mouth was significant. We were directed away from the truth.This documentary eloquently shows how not examining evidence, can lead a population to anti-science views. Anti-vaccination, climate change deniers, creationists, all of these ideas require an inability to effectively examine available evidence. They require trust in untrustworthy sources. Like Mr Andrews, Ken Ham and those of his ilk present a beaker of acid, and require that you simply believe that supposition. They use this supposition to build extraordinary claims. In the case of Ken Ham, he uses the supposition that the bible is 100% true to build the claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that evolution is not a fact, that the entire Earth was flooded 4000 years ago. This of course is despite a complete lack of corroborating evidence. Once they accept the supposition any claim can be made. There is no difference between isotopes of mercury, therefore vaccines cause autism.I've never seen a cat turn into a dog, therefore evolution cannot be true.It snowed today, therefore the climate cannot be warming. All these logical fallacies result from the inability to examine the evidence. An inability to understand statistical significance. An inability to question 'trustworthy' sources. In short, an inability to perform effective scientific enquiry.I can't know if Bill Nye's approach is the most effective one. Perhaps debates are pointless because they only bring more attention to extreme views, or perhaps they are effective means of exposing people to new ideas. All I know is that Mr Andrews is the reason why I have a passion for science, and I know that Bill Nye has similarly inspired many. Perhaps documentaries such as this, have the power to change minds, or at least to lead people in the right direction.
