Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a liability

TheGnome said:
I guess I just don't understand you guys.

Or maybe you just don't understand the difference between a power law and an exponential law?

I mean every time we read of an exponential growth rate in the news paper (and we do from time to time, though it is quite often misapplied), it could just mean a square law, right?

And this has not much to do with a complete and accurate understanding of the underlying issues.
Click to expand...

Should we then crucify everyone that made mistakes in an attempt to interest people in science?

Because that Carl Sagan heretic with his 'pale blue dot' quote, made lots of mistakes in that one bit too. Sunbeam? There are no sunbeams in space, it was an artefact of the camera. He should have clearly mentioned that. And the earth is not a mote of dust, he should have clearly mentioned relative sizes, preferably by comparing square kilometers and parts per billion.

Or those Mythbusters. Gods, they make SO many mistakes and simplifications, how can anyone every consider that true scientific rigor. Each episode should be 10 times as long with tons of math and statistical analysis.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that what Neild deGrasse Tyson is doing in these talks is a combination of entertaiment, teaching and instilling wonder.
Yes, he says things that might not be completely accurate, but his audience is not a group of astrophysicists but rather total laymen. He is using terms that people are likely to be familiar with to explain concepts that otherwise would require months of learning mathematics. Nearly everyone has at least a concept of what exponential means. Inverse squared law, not so much.

Sure, it might be technically wrong, but there are two types of person that can see this. First are those already in the various fields, who are not his audience. And second are those that have listened to his talks, thought "This is cool, I wish to know more!" and actually start developing an interest in science.

If we had applied the rigor the OP requires to all science communication I would never have started my interest and career. Because as a child inverse square laws, quantum physics, statistical analysis etc etc are boring. But a clearly passionate man explaining these things in layman's terms IS what got me interested.

But by all means, if you think you can do better, go for it! Explain science in a correcter way to the greater public. After all, the more people that do so, the better it is in the long run.
 
No one should be bothered by trivial mistakes.

We should, however, be bothered by bad science. Morgan Freeman's god series annoyed me the other day. Some guy does an experiment with kids and when they believe an invisible princess is in the room watching them, they don't cheat at some task. From there Freeman declares we must behave better when we believe an invisible god is watching us.

That conclusion is not supported by the evidence and it represents really crap science. The conclusion is easy to disprove and stages of child development explain the behavior quite well thank you.

If Tyson were spouting bad science, I would complain. But trivial errors? No, just no.
 
smartcooky said:
It does! Religion is an anathema to science.
Click to expand...

It is, but that does not excuse using fictional examples to support it.

"Okay, so my supporting arguments were all BS, but the point still stands!" Well, no it doesn't - not until you support it with non-BS arguments.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Should we then crucify everyone that made mistakes in an attempt to interest people in science?

Because that Carl Sagan heretic with his 'pale blue dot' quote, made lots of mistakes in that one bit too. Sunbeam? There are no sunbeams in space, it was an artefact of the camera. He should have clearly mentioned that. And the earth is not a mote of dust, he should have clearly mentioned relative sizes, preferably by comparing square kilometers and parts per billion.

Or those Mythbusters. Gods, they make SO many mistakes and simplifications, how can anyone every consider that true scientific rigor. Each episode should be 10 times as long with tons of math and statistical analysis.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that what Neild deGrasse Tyson is doing in these talks is a combination of entertaiment, teaching and instilling wonder.
Yes, he says things that might not be completely accurate, but his audience is not a group of astrophysicists but rather total laymen. He is using terms that people are likely to be familiar with to explain concepts that otherwise would require months of learning mathematics. Nearly everyone has at least a concept of what exponential means. Inverse squared law, not so much.

Sure, it might be technically wrong, but there are two types of person that can see this. First are those already in the various fields, who are not his audience. And second are those that have listened to his talks, thought "This is cool, I wish to know more!" and actually start developing an interest in science.

If we had applied the rigor the OP requires to all science communication I would never have started my interest and career. Because as a child inverse square laws, quantum physics, statistical analysis etc etc are boring. But a clearly passionate man explaining these things in layman's terms IS what got me interested.

But by all means, if you think you can do better, go for it! Explain science in a correcter way to the greater public. After all, the more people that do so, the better it is in the long run.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think this is getting ridiculous.

In my first post in this thread, I was pointing out a simple misconception of CORed. Not of NDGT, of CORed. I could care less about NDGT, but not by much. All I know about him I know from this thread and another one like this.

I have said several times that I don't think this was a huge mistake of his but I get increasingly attacked by Tyson apologetics. By quite a few people who don't seem to know the difference between a power law and an exponential law. I mean, quick, what are they?

I do not know the exact definition of a strawman but I have the feeling that there have been a lot of them around.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No one should be bothered by trivial mistakes.

We should, however, be bothered by bad science. Morgan Freeman's god series annoyed me the other day. Some guy does an experiment with kids and when they believe an invisible princess is in the room watching them, they don't cheat at some task. From there Freeman declares we must behave better when we believe an invisible god is watching us.

That conclusion is not supported by the evidence and it represents really crap science. The conclusion is easy to disprove and stages of child development explain the behavior quite well thank you.

If Tyson were spouting bad science, I would complain. But trivial errors? No, just no.
Click to expand...

Fantastic voice for, but not of, authority. Putting his voice to bad science is even more underhanded on the part of producers.
 
TheGnome said:
Ok, I think this is getting ridiculous....
Click to expand...

In the role cited, NGT is acting in the gist business, not that of nits, which can be picked later by those in the know, but do not aid in that particular endeavor. I could look it up, but I do believe you are correct about an important nit, however.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

What do you base that on? Just because Tyson, like Carl Sagan, moved into the field of popularizing cosmology doesn't mean he didn't earn his position. He has a doctorate in astrophysics for heaven's sake.

From Wiki: Tyson's research publications
Click to expand...
Of course, I'm aware he knows his stuff when it comes to astrophysics. But, outside his area of expertise? Yes, what I've seen is someone who is far from a consistent critical thinker. Very, very far, in fact.

Is that (being a consistent critical thinker), to be expected from someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson? I would hope so, but maybe other people are more than ok with him making cringeworthy statements and rationalizations about things outside his area of expertise, as long as he keeps being good (and entertaining as well) at what he is good at.

I was baffled and very disappointed about how he rationalized not wanting to be described as an atheist some time ago. I wasn't expecting that level of anti-intellectual drivel from someone like him. This was not the occasional factual mistake every human (including the most brilliant) does: it highlighted a thinking process that left a lot to be desired. And that is the opposite of what I expect from a worthy intellectual. That, among other reasons (like his generalizations about the medical profession or philosophers, which prompted responses from Novella and Pigliucci, respectively), prevent me from putting him in the same group as Novella, Pigliucci, Dennett or Carroll, who despite their occasional shortcomings (like any human being, I insist), have demonstrated a more solid and consistent intellectual stature. Being a good intellectual, to me, demands being extra careful when one is speaking about things they don't know so much about. That's a good start, if you ask me.

Think he got where he is now based on his looks and public speaking? Affirmative action?
Click to expand...
No, and irrelevant anyway.

Do you even know anything about this man?
Click to expand...
Enough to be far from impressed by him as an intellectual.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Should we then crucify everyone that made mistakes in an attempt to interest people in science?
Click to expand...

Or my AC guy who was trying to explain why one of his technicians misdiagnosed a problem with my unit? He simplified the problem to the point of slightly misrepresenting what was actually happening. I guess I could have told him I did pretty well in my thermo classes and have actually done a fair bit of work in the filed so he could be more precise with me than he is with most of his clients. Instead, I understood what he was trying to say and appreciated his willingness to simplify it to a point where a lay person could actually understand what was happening.
 
Dani said:
Of course, I'm aware he knows his stuff when it comes to astrophysics. But, outside his area of expertise? Yes, what I've seen is someone who is far from a consistent critical thinker. Very, very far, in fact.

Is that (being a consistent critical thinker), to be expected from someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson? I would hope so, but maybe other people are more than ok with him making cringeworthy statements and rationalizations about things outside his area of expertise, as long as he keeps being good (and entertaining as well) at what he is good at.

I was baffled and very disappointed about how he rationalized not wanting to be described as an atheist some time ago. I wasn't expecting that level of anti-intellectual drivel from someone like him. This was not the occasional factual mistake every human (including the most brilliant) does: it highlighted a thinking process that left a lot to be desired. And that is the opposite of what I expect from a worthy intellectual. That, among other reasons (like his generalizations about the medical profession or philosophers, which prompted responses from Novella and Pigliucci, respectively), prevent me from putting him in the same group as Novella, Pigliucci, Dennett or Carroll, who despite their occasional shortcomings (like any human being, I insist), have demonstrated a more solid and consistent intellectual stature. Being a good intellectual, to me, demands being extra careful when one is speaking about things they don't know so much about. That's a good start, if you ask me.

No, and irrelevant anyway.

Enough to be far from impressed by him as an intellectual.
Click to expand...
So your argument is he's agnostic and not atheist enough for you and he professed "generalizations about the medical profession or philosophers" that you disagree with?

I need a link on the last one to know what you are referring to.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So your argument is he's agnostic and not atheist enough for you and he professed "generalizations about the medical profession or philosophers" that you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's the way he argued that, not the conclusion. Wasn't I clear enough that I have to clarify that?

And yes, unless we are talking about something which is demonstrably at odds with science and reason, I tend to be wary of generalizations of entire fields of inquiry. Especially when it's made by people outside that field, more so when I've read the responses by experts on those fields who give a much more nuanced account of it.

I need a link on the last one to know what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No one should be bothered by trivial mistakes.

We should, however, be bothered by bad science. Morgan Freeman's god series annoyed me the other day. Some guy does an experiment with kids and when they believe an invisible princess is in the room watching them, they don't cheat at some task. From there Freeman declares we must behave better when we believe an invisible god is watching us.
Click to expand...

We also behave better when we know for a fact that a real person is watching us.
 
Oh, no! Most fake persons are a lot more believable, interesting and inspiring. Making such a comparison would be a disservice to most fictional characters.
 
Argumemnon said:
Oh, no! Most fake persons are a lot more believable, interesting and inspiring. Making such a comparison would be a disservice to most fictional characters.
Click to expand...

Haha! I see what you did there.

Oh. What about a fictional character named God? Now I have you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom