Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a liability

[Belz...]

Haha! I see what you did there.

Oh. What about a fictional character named God? Now I have you.

No, I did mention "most" fictional characters. That leaves out the really badly written ones, like God. It's like using Mitch McConnel as a shining example of a conservative.

 

[Imhotep]

Saying "most", "usually", etc. is a very good habit. Nice escape there.

 

[Dani]

I agree with him.

Whoever you agree with, good for you.

 

[Imhotep]

Agreed

 

[This is The End]

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.

While that is true there is no reason it cannot be both.

Strive for both.

 

[dudalb]

We are make mistakes, but IMHO Tyson makes a few too many for my taste. I think the fame has gone to his head,and he feels compelled to offer opinions on things he knows nothing about. Sagan did not have foot in mouth disease the way that Tyson does.

 

[sphenisc]

We are all make mistakes, but IMHO Tyson makes a few too many for my taste. I think the fame has gone to his head,and he feels compelled to offer opinions on things he knows nothing about. Sagan did not have foot in mouth disease the way that Tyson does.

FTFY

 

[Dr. Keith]

We are make mistakes, but IMHO Tyson makes a few too many for my taste. I think the fame has gone to his head,and he feels compelled to offer opinions on things he knows nothing about. Sagan did not have foot in mouth disease the way that Tyson does.

And I think it is a feature, not a bug.

See event that is popular.
Push out science related thought or claim on said topic via social media.
Sit back and watch the **** storm of people correcting and nit picking.
Engage on a superficial level.
Watch people learn about science.
Smile.

 

[Venom]

The Mongols also had a hand in destroying a possible intellectual Renaissance in the western Muslim world by completely devastating Baghdad in 1258.

Skeptic populists are often quick to blame internal problems in religion when outside, largely secular factors often come into play too.

 

[TheGnome]

I like this argument. Yes, for those who could even form that picture in their head completely and accurately, in other words, those intimately familiar with the subject, they would be mislead by his inaccurate terminology? Surely you jest.

I'm thin skinned. I don't handle conflict and ridicule well. Sometimes I perceive an insult when none exists.

So it took me some time to make this post. But I still feel it important (to me, not to you or anybody else) to once again reply to this post.

The inverse square law is quite a simple law. It can be explained easily, that way e.g.:
Double the distance --> a quarter the force.
I'm certain that can be understood by say a highschool student.

But you say, no, that is far to complicated. It's better to use a big word that said student probably has no clue what it means.

We have seen in this thread that even well educated people sometimes don't understand it. You yourself with your claimed familiarity with math didn't characterize it properly.

So I really think your argument has no merit.

Now if you feel like mocking me some more, well, as John Madison once said on his now defunct blog Nothing For Ungood: You Can Me One Time.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm thin skinned. I don't handle conflict and ridicule well. Sometimes I perceive an insult when none exists.

I am flippant and sometimes use sarcasm, but I have never intended to insult you. My reply is directed at your argument, not you. If there is no separation in you mind, then put me on ignore and don't read the rest of my reply. It will not bother me in the least.

The inverse square law is quite a simple law. It can be explained easily, that way e.g.:
Double the distance --> a quarter the force.
I'm certain that can be understood by say a highschool student.

Agreed.

But you say, no, that is far to complicated. It's better to use a big word that said student probably has no clue what it means.

I said that I don't see a problem with him mistakenly calling that an exponential relationship. To me, it was clarifying a non-linear relationship.

Just as I have no problem calling framing lumber two by fours when the actual dimensions are not two inches by four inches.

We have seen in this thread that even well educated people sometimes don't understand it. You yourself with your claimed familiarity with math didn't characterize it properly.

Well educated people sitting in a lay talk by an astrophysicist are not taking notes to update the calculations in their latest experiment based on his words. They are talking about the big picture, the 30k foot view. I do not think his point was that it was not an inverse square relationship, but that it was not a simple linear relationship. Using the inaccurate phrase "exponential" gets that point across very succinctly to those who are familiar with math, but don't work with it every day.

So I really think your argument has no merit.

That I have not been able to convince you of the merit of my argument does not mean it lacks merit. And your statement that it lacks merit adds nothing to your argument.

Whereas your argument is petty. I can't tell if you are arguing that NDGT is stupid or ineffective, but I would posit that the evidence is that he is very good at what he does. If you really disagree then go ahead and name ten people who are better at bringing attention to astrophysics and the people working in that field.

Now if you feel like mocking me some more, well, as John Madison once said on his now defunct blog Nothing For Ungood: You Can Me One Time.

Again, you are seeing mocking in my disagreement with you. It is not there, but you see it. Your thin skin will not stop me from pressing my point if I so desire.

That we disagree is no grounds for personal animus. I disagree with many of my friends here. That is part of the attraction. Discussion on topics where there is no disagreement is pointless.

 

[TheGnome]

Just a few points:

1) I actually like you, I like reading your posts. So I was quite surprised at my reaction to you in this thread. It kept nagging at me. So I had to do something about it.

2) The form of my post: Well, I was blowing off some steam. So it came out a bit angry. With my last line I was clumsily trying to show that I don't take it as seriously as it may appear.

3) I never intended to critisize NDGT. I don't know him, so how could I? I just disagree with some of the arguments that are used to justify his choice of words. But ultimately it's not very important to me. So you have a different opinion? Oh well then. And maybe I'm placing to much importance on certain technicalities because I'm quite familiar with them.

Thank you for replying to my rant in this well considered and measured way.

Oh and by the way, I'm feeling much better now.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Just a few points:

1) I actually like you, I like reading your posts. So I was quite surprised at my reaction to you in this thread. It kept nagging at me. So I had to do something about it.

I appreciate that. Scratching that nagging itch is important and I appreciated your candor in doing so.

Thank you for replying to my rant in this well considered and measured way.

Its the least that we should expect from each other. Even if we don't always live up that minimum standard.

I probably addressed comments form others while attempting to address you and that may have colored my response. For that I'm sorry.

Oh and by the way, I'm feeling much better now.

Good. I think I am, too.