Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a liability

Part A

There are far smarter humans than Neil Tyson, including Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Edward Witten etc.

They together with Neil, like other humans, are susceptible to error.

However, that they are susceptible to error, does not suddenly render them non-scientists.


[IMGw=450]http://i.imgur.com/i2znB3u.png[/IMGw]


Part B

Neil Tyson research samples:

"OPTICAL LIGHT CURVES OF THE TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE SN 1990N AND SN 1991T"
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/media/pdf/1998-AJ-115,234.pdf


"The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s"
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/media/pdf/1991-ApJ-367,547.pdf




Part C

(1) What type of research have you contributed to humanity?
(2) Are you not susceptible to error, in some way?
 
Lurch said:
I'm rather forgiving of a *popularizer's* mistakes, simplifications and even warping of some facts if the principal goal of inspiring the audience is realized. At several points during the episodes I did see of the Cosmos remake there were groaners. But at least 9 out of 10 in the audience would miss most or all of these. I think NGT's audience--or at least the most important part thereof--is the all too common scientifically illiterate. Getting across to them the rudiments in a way that's engaging is job number one. If that's achieved, mission accomplished! Sins forgiven.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

I used to each radar theory at a Technical Training School in the Air Force, and one of the most difficult subjects to get across was how TACAN worked. I often found that if I could get my students to understand the principles of operation, even simplifying it to a point where what I was telling them was not technically correct, I could always fill in the complexity later.
 
smartcooky said:
Yep. I wish people would PREVIEW their posts and fix broken quotes before they push the go button.



I think you miss a lot by getting angry about minutiae.
Click to expand...

When I first started watching Star Talk, I didn't like it all that much. I couldn't immediately put my finger on why, but after watching a few episodes it dawned on me that it was his sense of humour. NDGT has a quirky sense of humour. Its an acquired taste, and it definitely took me while to acquire it.

When I heard he was going to be the host/narrator of the Cosmos reboot, I was initially disappointed. I though there were others who might have done a better job (Brian Cox, Alice Roberts perhaps) but having seen the whole series, he was perfect for the job, and I now cannot imagine anyone else in that role.
:thumbsup::p
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HopDavid said:
Rigor and accuracy are not important. Gotcha.

You admire Tyson because he invents fictions to support arguments you agree with.

You are no skeptic.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the animosity? Is it because he's black? Is this like the visceral reaction some people had about Obama? Don't like them uppity coloreds? Is that it? Not possible for a person of color being that smart so he must be pulled down?

What arguments do I need Tyson to create fictions for? Evolution? God? Maybe Global Warming? Seriously, what back story have you made up for this?
 
welshdean said:
:confused: :confused: :confused:

I'm not sure what NDGT does, but interestingly, I did learn that the skin of an apple is proportionately similar to the earth's atmosphere. I thought that was a marvelous fact, one to tell the children and their children too.
:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

He's comparing apples and oranges here.

Given that avg. radius of the earth is 6,400km, and that of the atmosphere is by the Karman line (110km), you have the equivalent of 110km/6400km or 1.7cm. So far, so good.

The trouble is when you force fit your other data on the apple side.

Apples range from a size 64 to a size 216 (http://stemilttrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AppleSizing.pdf). All of these would be cited as a "ordinary" apple.

Skin thickness also sorts out from a low of 33um up to 76um, with variation between different thicknesses on the same apple. (http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/51351.pdf)

Putting these two apple facts together, we get a broad range of values - from 4.3cm down to 2.31cm, combined with .033cm to .076cm --> yielding a low of .0076 and a high of .0239 ... way outside our range.

Could you find some set of apples where his example would be true? Yes. Good luck with that.

The take home lesson is not to make fruit analogies for planets.
 
marplots said:
He's comparing apples and oranges here.

Given that avg. radius of the earth is 6,400km, and that of the atmosphere is by the Karman line (110km), you have the equivalent of 110km/6400km or 1.7cm. So far, so good.

The trouble is when you force fit your other data on the apple side.

Apples range from a size 64 to a size 216 (http://stemilttrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AppleSizing.pdf). All of these would be cited as a "ordinary" apple.

Skin thickness also sorts out from a low of 33um up to 76um, with variation between different thicknesses on the same apple. (http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/51351.pdf)

Putting these two apple facts together, we get a broad range of values - from 4.3cm down to 2.31cm, combined with .033cm to .076cm --> yielding a low of .0076 and a high of .0239 ... way outside our range.

Could you find some set of apples where his example would be true? Yes. Good luck with that.

The take home lesson is not to make fruit analogies for planets.
Click to expand...

The point is that the atmosphere is not that big compared to the earth and his not quite accurate analogy illustrates that sufficiently for the general population.

Using analogies to explain science is often like using a banana to demonstrate condom use. The fruit is not to scale (for most) but it gets the idea across. (And technically a banana is a berry and we don't put the condom on our berries.)
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
He's comparing apples and oranges here.

Given that avg. radius of the earth is 6,400km, and that of the atmosphere is by the Karman line (110km), you have the equivalent of 110km/6400km or 1.7cm. So far, so good.

The trouble is when you force fit your other data on the apple side.

Apples range from a size 64 to a size 216 (http://stemilttrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AppleSizing.pdf). All of these would be cited as a "ordinary" apple.

Skin thickness also sorts out from a low of 33um up to 76um, with variation between different thicknesses on the same apple. (http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/51351.pdf)

Putting these two apple facts together, we get a broad range of values - from 4.3cm down to 2.31cm, combined with .033cm to .076cm --> yielding a low of .0076 and a high of .0239 ... way outside our range.

Could you find some set of apples where his example would be true? Yes. Good luck with that.

The take home lesson is not to make fruit analogies for planets.
Click to expand...

Aren't we just being picky? How do you determine what the range is? His analogy isn't meant to be utilized for a precision instrument, but to convey to laymen that the atmosphere is thin.
 
Spindrift said:
The point is that the atmosphere is not that big compared to the earth and his not quite accurate analogy illustrates that sufficiently for the general population.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line?

acbytesla said:
Aren't we just being picky? How do you determine what the range is? His analogy isn't meant to be utilized for a precision instrument, but to convey to laymen that the atmosphere is thin.
Click to expand...

The atmosphere is as thin as:
The epithelium on your teeth.
The oxidized shell on a BB.

I get it. It's a great analogy. But it's wrong.
 
marplots said:
He's comparing apples and oranges here.

Given that avg. radius of the earth is 6,400km, and that of the atmosphere is by the Karman line (110km), you have the equivalent of 110km/6400km or 1.7cm. So far, so good.

The trouble is when you force fit your other data on the apple side.

Apples range from a size 64 to a size 216 (http://stemilttrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AppleSizing.pdf). All of these would be cited as a "ordinary" apple.

Skin thickness also sorts out from a low of 33um up to 76um, with variation between different thicknesses on the same apple. (http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/51351.pdf)

Putting these two apple facts together, we get a broad range of values - from 4.3cm down to 2.31cm, combined with .033cm to .076cm --> yielding a low of .0076 and a high of .0239 ... way outside our range.

Could you find some set of apples where his example would be true? Yes. Good luck with that.

The take home lesson is not to make fruit analogies for planets.
Click to expand...

Give me a break! Let's use instead a definition of the thickness of the atmosphere most people listening to this analogy might actually use, okay? Say "breathable" -perhaps 6 km, or even the troposphere - up to 18 km. How does the compariosn work then? No one in his audience would consider the Karman line as conferring a useful measure of what they would define as the thickness of the atmosphere,
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Where do you draw the line?

The atmosphere is as thin as:
The epithelium on your teeth.
The oxidized shell on a BB.

I get it. It's a great analogy. But it's wrong.
Click to expand...

As I said, You're being pedantic. Nobody cares.
 
marplots said:
He's comparing apples and oranges here.

Given that avg. radius of the earth is 6,400km, and that of the atmosphere is by the Karman line (110km), you have the equivalent of 110km/6400km or 1.7cm. So far, so good.
Click to expand...

What is 1.7cm supposed to be?

Anyway your ratio gives the atmosphere as about 1/58th the size of the radius of the earth. 110/6400 = 0.017.

The trouble is when you force fit your other data on the apple side.

Apples range from a size 64 to a size 216 (http://stemilttrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AppleSizing.pdf). All of these would be cited as a "ordinary" apple.
Click to expand...
I didn't click your link because I assume that you are reporting apple sizes correctly, but not clicking I have no idea what those numbers mean. Anyway, it's okay because below you give some units:

Skin thickness also sorts out from a low of 33um up to 76um, with variation between different thicknesses on the same apple. (http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/51351.pdf)

Putting these two apple facts together, we get a broad range of values - from 4.3cm down to 2.31cm, combined with .033cm to .076cm --> yielding a low of .0076 and a high of .0239 ... way outside our range.
Click to expand...

The thickness of the atmosphere / the radius of the earth is 0.017. Your range of skin thickness/apple radius goes from 0.0076 - 0.0239. 0.017 is very much within that range.
 
Giordano said:
Give me a break! Let's use instead a definition of the thickness of the atmosphere most people listening to this analogy might actually use, okay? Say "breathable" -perhaps 6 km, or even the troposphere - up to 18 km. How does the compariosn work then? No one in his audience would consider the Karman line as conferring a useful measure of what they would define as the thickness of the atmosphere,
Click to expand...

This is the kind of apologetics it takes to make it all work out, but it's still wrong.

Consider what a science advocate is challenged to do. He's responsible to put a little work in. It's sloppy. What am I to make of an analogy that fails so miserably? If I am in his target audience, I'll look into it myself, and find out the trick. What then does it say for the next think he tells me?

He should drop it.
 
I think the OP does have a good point.

For instance I find Tyson very annoying when he talks about dark matter. He goes on about how we don't know anything about it ("We shouldn't call it dark matter, we should just call it Fred, we don't know that it's matter" etc.). But we know much more about it than his portrayal implies.
 
marplots said:
This is the kind of apologetics it takes to make it all work out, but it's still wrong.

Consider what a science advocate is challenged to do. He's responsible to put a little work in. It's sloppy. What am I to make of an analogy that fails so miserably? If I am in his target audience, I'll look into it myself, and find out the trick. What then does it say for the next think he tells me?

He should drop it.
Click to expand...

But it's not wrong. At least according to your numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom