Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a liability

HopDavid said:
My look at TAM6 is broken into small, digestible sections.

Tyson's fans seem to have a short attention span.
Click to expand...

no, actually, the problem is more each one should wind up being on it's own for simplicity of discussion. Also, in all fairness, I have no interest on what any scholar more than around 500 years ago had to say about science UNLESS it was a point clearly well made and thoroughly proven in it's time. (where proven does not include disproven later).
 
acbytesla said:
I keep wondering what this has to do with religion.
Click to expand...

A big part of Tyson's TAM6 presentation was how religion shuts down innovation in math and science.

For example his making the Muslim cleric Ghazali the scape goat for ending the Islamic Golden Age.

Or blaming Newton's belief in the God of the Gaps for his failure to build the n-body mechanics which was later done by Laplace.

There is also the portrayal of Bush as an intolerant xenophobe. Which is a popular two dimensional stereotype of Christians.

I'm fine with bashing Bush as well as criticizing Christians and Muslims. But it should be fact based bashing. Tyson invents fiction to make his points. He is making himself as well as his fans objects of ridicule.

Spindrift said:
One was the whole thing about the milligrams. The point was that it made it sound like a huge amount by saying thousands of milligrams, the point was not whether or not 2 grams is a lot of coke.
Click to expand...

Regarding the two thousand milligrams of coke, yeah it was a cheap shot. But a good lead in to my illustration of Tyson tripping daisies.
 
theprestige said:
Once you realize that they see Tyson as an entertainer, not a scientist, it makes more sense. Nobody expects Amy Schumer's sets to be bastions of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

It's like the difference between a biblical scholar and a pastor. They are not the same thing. Am I depending on Tyson for critical information? No. But he does get me interested the curriculum. I watched him talk about Einstein and Newton and I loved every second. I understood relativity much better after that. But it certainly wasn't complete. But his presentation led me to watching more documentaries about relativity.

If he can do that with a few budding young students or impress upon parents our the society as a whole to foster more science exploration than he has done his job.
 
What is this crap about Tyson not being a scientist? He has a Bachlors in physics from Harvard, a PhD in Asyrophysics from Columbia University, is director of the Hayden Planetarium, has obtained research grants and published detailed primary research papers based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope, etc. Yes, he has chosen to also do something he is incredibly good at: popularizing science, an endeavor I very much appreciate because I love listening to him do it. Sure he may not be as much of an expert in, say biology, as in astrophysics, but I am a biologist and I have not heard him ever say anything I would disagree with. Certainly explaining science to the general population requires some generalizations and ignoring some details. But to suggest he is not a fine scientist in his own right is absurd.
 
Giordano said:
What is this crap about Tyson not being a scientist? He has a Bachlors in physics from Harvard, a PhD in Asyrophysics from Columbia University, is director of the Hayden Planetarium, has obtained research grants and published detailed primary research papers based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope, etc. Yes, he has chosen to also do something he is incredibly good at: popularizing science, an endeavor I very much appreciate because I love listening to him do it. Sure he may not be as much of an expert in, say biology, as in astrophysics, but I am a biologist and I have not heard him ever say anything I would disagree with. Certainly explaining science to the general population requires some generalizations and ignoring some details. But to suggest he is not a fine scientist in his own right is absurd.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I've seen people say that Nye isn't a scientist either which would be closer to the truth than Tyson. But they both are scientists.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Could you check and fix your URL and QUOTE tags? Several are broken. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yep. I wish people would PREVIEW their posts and fix broken quotes before they push the go button.

HopDavid said:
Tyson is a B.S. artist. - TL;<snipped>
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
HopDavid said:
A big part of Tyson's TAM6 presentation was how religion shuts down innovation in math and science..
Click to expand...

It does! Religion is an anathema to science.

Just look at number YEC loonies running around telling anyone who will listen that Noah's Flood was literally a real event and that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Just look at what the Taliban did to the science of archaeology with the destruction of millennia old historic statues in Ghazni, Herat, Jalalabad and Kandahar... all in the name of religion

What about what ISIS did to the ancient city of Palmyra, to the monasteries at Mar Benham and Ear Elean, to Nineveh, Apamea, Mari, Dua-Europos, Khorsabad, Nimrud and Hatra. All priceless and important archaeological sites, all destroyed with explosive and bulldozers.. all done in the name of God!

Religion is a blight on humanity. Most of the world's most horrifying wars were fought in the name of religion.. we'd all be a lot better off without it.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Did he do that one where he compares the skin of an apple to the earth's atmosphere? God, I hate that one.
Click to expand...

: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:
 
smartcooky said:
It does! Religion is an anathema to science.
Click to expand...

Eyup. Muslims and Catholic priests were stifling science when they preserved and copied books, wrote new books, built schools, universities, libraries, hospitals and observatories and taught literacy. Galileo was educated by Catholic priests and attended a university built by the pope. Without the church there would have been no Galileo. Even to this day Catholic schools are known for their academic excellence.

But you're evading the point.

I point out Tyson concocts fictions to make his arguments. Is there a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil? Was Newton a super human who invented calculus on a dare? Is it a certainty Newton would've done Laplaces' work had he not believed in God? Etc.

You are not addressing any of the falsehoods swallowed by the so called skeptics at TAM6. Do try to stay on topic.
 
smartcooky said:
I think you miss a lot by getting angry about minutiae.
Click to expand...

Concocting a fiction to falsely portray Bush as xenophobic demagogue is not minutia.

Concocting a false history of Hamid al Ghazali to make his point is not minutia.

Slamming the American Medical Association, idiot doctors and pre-med based on his ignorance of medicine is a fairly spectacular display of incompetence.

I think you miss a lot by ignoring the falsehoods of people you agree with.
 
acbytesla said:
I watched him talk about Einstein and Newton and I loved every second.
Click to expand...

When Tyson tells you Newton invented calculus on a dare, you're not better informed.

When Tyson tells you gravity falls exponentially with distance, he certainly isn't teaching you Newtonian mechanics. For orbits to follow the paths of conic sections, gravity needs to fall with inverse square of distance.

When Tyson tells you Arthur C. Clarke was the first to calculate the altitude of geosynchronous orbit, he is leading you into confusion. Herman Potočnik and Tsiolkovsky had done that when Clarke was still a child. Clarke's accomplishment was suggesting communication satellites be placed in geosynchronous orbit.

When Tyson tells you there are more transcendental numbers than irrational numbers, he is not making you smarter when it comes to math.

When Tyson tells you the Observer Effect and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are the same thing, he is misinforming you.

By growing the IFLS crowd, I believe Tyson is making the populace even dumber.

When his following swallows obvious misinformation without question, they should not call themselves skeptics.
 
HopDavid said:
When Tyson tells you Newton invented calculus on a dare, you're not better informed.

When Tyson tells you gravity falls exponentially with distance, he certainly isn't teaching you Newtonian mechanics. For orbits to follow the paths of conic sections, gravity needs to fall with inverse square of distance.

When Tyson tells you Arthur C. Clarke was the first to calculate the altitude of geosynchronous orbit, he is leading you into confusion. Herman Potočnik and Tsiolkovsky had done that when Clarke was still a child. Clarke's accomplishment was suggesting communication satellites be placed in geosynchronous orbit.

When Tyson tells you there are more transcendental numbers than irrational numbers, he is not making you smarter when it comes to math.

When Tyson tells you the Observer Effect and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are the same thing, he is misinforming you.

By growing the IFLS crowd, I believe Tyson is making the populace even dumber.

When his following swallows obvious misinformation without question, they should not call themselves skeptics.
Click to expand...

You really have a hardon against Tyson. I know you thinks these discrepancies matter but I assure you that they don't. I read multiple books where the authors said that Tesla invented radio and while he was a contributor, he didn't. But that doesn't mean I didn't appreciate those books.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean that I have to hold in contempt people that makes mistakes. I admire Tyson because he makes science interesting. As I said before, he's performing an important function.

Climb off the high horse.
 
So Hop, Tell me how you really feel thou.

Also.

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...

What color is the Scotsman's kilt?
 
Last edited:
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...

That's so full of crap. A skeptic means I don't take everything on face value and am open to a better argument. I don't have an opinion on Einstein or Newton or Laplace other than admiring their contributions. Tyson is funny and leads people to science. And for that I appreciate his contributions.

I'm never going to work for NASA and while I can appreciate rigor and accuracy I think there is something to be said about fun. When it comes to publishing to a scientific journal I expect the peer review process will ensure his Tyson getting it right.

Maybe someone inspired by Tyson will correct his work.

Take a chill pill. It's not like he's the President of the United States.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom