Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Whilst out on a limb speculating yourself into the pot & kettle fallacy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a liability
- Thread starter HopDavid
- Start date
-
- Tags
- neil degrasse tyson tam 6
Whilst out on a limb speculating yourself into the pot & kettle fallacy.
Depends on who kilt him!!!!!
I think sometimes that skepticism ruins all the fun, in real life day to day.
Sometimes I find myself (or others do) over-analyzing things that really aren't important. Knowing when to shut up is part of being a skeptic, at least to me. Nobody wants to hang around the know-it-all at a party, for instance. Cliff Claven sydrome.
I think this picking of Tyson is mostly that. We have our skeptic hats on too tight.
About the racial thing, it never occurred to me.
I think Tyson is great. I like his approach much better than Bill Nye's. I saw Nye's new show on Netflix and I think he comes across a bit too condescending and elitist.
ETA:
To the OP: Tyson a liability? Are you crazy?
Last edited:
I find Tyson entertaining and engaging in terms of popularizing science, but I don't think of him highly as a thinker, generally speaking. At all. And some of the things stated in the OP don't surprise me.
Exactly.
Sean Carroll said:
Exactly.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
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
Think he got where he is now based on his looks and public speaking? Affirmative action?
Do you even know anything about this man?
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
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
Think he got where he is now based on his looks and public speaking? Affirmative action?
Do you even know anything about this man?
Well said sir. The man has his **** together.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Some people aren't happy unless they have something to complain about or someone to find real or imagined faults in. Just happens it's Tyson's turn in the barrel.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Well, he does make an easy target, with his confabulations.
And his work as a physicist is a red herring. Nobody is criticizing him on that basis.
This signature is intended to irradiate people.
Nope, he is not an easy target: he is not only an excellent scientist but a superb explainer of science and of the value of science to the general public. Which is what makes him a target of conservatives who find scientifically derived facts inconvenient. Evolution? Goes against fundamentalist religion. Global climate change? Goes against the Koch brothers desire to sell more coal and oil. The importance of government funded research? Goes against the simplistic ideas of purely private enterprise. etc.
And an individual questioning, or worse still, providing facts that might convince others to question the current far-right Republican agenda means that the individual must be attacked and their credibility underminded. The way to do it is by innuendo: subtly suggest, using incorrect, wrong, distorted information, that the individual is not to be trusted. Use rumors. Use hyperbola. Focus on the meaningless. Eventually, even in the absence of any proof, people will develop a subconscious buy in to these lies. "Oh Tyson? I heard you can't trust him... I don't quite remember why, but you can't. So if he says there is global climate change there probably isn't"
I've seen this applied to other prominent individuals n the past and I sense this being applied to Tyson now. This strategy works even more readily against Tyson because of the subconcious racism that cause some people to be unable to admit that a black person might be smarter than they are, and that they might actually learn a lot from that person.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I think this whole thread is just that, someone whose god beliefs are the real issue.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,521
I'm with you Ginger. It's either that or some deep seeded subconscious racism. I think Tyson is great. I have no issues with him at all. But that doesn't mean he's perfect. But then again I don't expect him or understand why anyone would else would expect him to be.
We don't expect him to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out when he's wrong. And recognise it when others do so.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
There seems to be an issue of degree here. Trashing someone's entire accomplishments because they didn't note things like specifically one penguin species that lives on the equator has a few members that live in the northern hemisphere?
Seriously, that's your nitpick?
There seems to be an issue of degree here. Trashing someone's entire accomplishments because they didn't note things like specifically one penguin species that lives on the equator has a few members that live in the northern hemisphere?
Seriously, that's your nitpick?
Yeah, that sounds pretty silly.
I agree that sometimes people have been giving NDT a hard time about ridiculous things. Marplots' criticism of the apple analogy springs to mind (sorry marplots). I read the OP and some of the things in there seemed to be reasonable criticisms, but I also don't know how accurate it was.
I generally like NDT, but sometimes he does say things that bother me, as I mentioned I find his take on dark matter misleading.
I think that Skeptic Ginger and Roboramma's posts highlight a crucial point: along with them I have no problem with criticism of what NDGT says: all scientists and science presenters should be subject to this form of correction. And as does everyone, NDGT does make minor mistakes or creates some over-simplifications in explaining science to the general public. This is pretty inherent in the genre- the science presenter provides overviews of fields that are not their own that they must explain using analogies and a non-scientific vocabulary to people with little appropriate background. Criticisms of flawed examples of this tightrope walk are valid, although imo the criticisms should recognize the nature of the genre: NDGT failing to note that Golden delicious apples may have ratios of peel to overall radius that stray 2 fold from that of the earth's atmosphere to radius is severely missing the point.
However, what I note in the OP, and in much of the right wing/religious criticisms of NDGT, is not so much an attempt to debate the specific points he makes, but an attempt to undermine and demean him overall. Rather than openly and directly debate him on global climate change or on evolution, points which he would obviously win, the goal as I see it is to attack him and his legitimacy personally using distortions, nitpicking, quotes out of context, etc. That way one can undercut him as a voice revealing the dangers of climate change without ever having to debate him on climate change. One can undercut him as an advocate of evolution without ever debating him on evolution. This may sound paranoid, but I've observed this inuenda/attack the individual strategy used against others who have opposed fundamentalist or right wing agendas.
However, what I note in the OP, and in much of the right wing/religious criticisms of NDGT, is not so much an attempt to debate the specific points he makes, but an attempt to undermine and demean him overall. Rather than openly and directly debate him on global climate change or on evolution, points which he would obviously win, the goal as I see it is to attack him and his legitimacy personally using distortions, nitpicking, quotes out of context, etc. That way one can undercut him as a voice revealing the dangers of climate change without ever having to debate him on climate change. One can undercut him as an advocate of evolution without ever debating him on evolution. This may sound paranoid, but I've observed this inuenda/attack the individual strategy used against others who have opposed fundamentalist or right wing agendas.
Last edited:
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
The method perfected by David Brower as head of the Sierra Club in the '60's had four basic points:
Use sweeping generalities with little or no support from empirical data.
Appeal to emotion rather than reason.
Use carefully selected, often out-of-context quotations and provide highly problematic interpretations of those quotations.
When the above does not suffice, lie.
Along with massive feely-touchy funding, Brower turned the Sierra Club into a force to be dealt with from coast to coast but he was eventually tossed by his own board of directors. Even though they "had had enough," that same technique is used by myriad groups in myriad venues to this day.
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.
Astrophysics.
Beady
Philosopher
It's easier to tear someone else down than to lift ourselves up.
We see further when we stand on the shoulders of giants, not on their backs.
This signature is intended to irritate people.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
NDT is a vital threat to the same narrative that Barack Obama and Jackie Robinson are/were. Counterexamples frustrating proper intolerance simply cannot be tolerated.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
TL: DR