PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of Neil degrasse Tyson?



The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-03, 01:15 AM
Any opinions on him and his media?

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-03, 01:33 AM
I'm sure he's a perfectly nice and very clever person. Can't bear to watch him, can't bear to listen to him.

Grant Hutchison

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-03, 01:46 AM
Why is that?

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-03, 02:17 AM
Why is that?Affected portentious gravitas. Whereas I can't bear to watch Brian Cox because of affected portentious bliss. (Equally, I'm sure, a nice and clever person.)
TV producers encourage certain behaviours that make willing or predisposed presenters appear to be entirely up themselves. It's not a good look. Not in our house, anyway.

Grant Hutchison

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-03, 04:08 AM
You don't have to be a TV personality to up yourself, meant a few in real life before they even had their undergrad.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-03, 04:21 AM
Plus some of youtube presenters make Sheldon on the Big bang look humble. I like Dr. Tyson.

Gillianren
2019-Jan-03, 04:11 PM
Clever, assuredly. Nice . . . there are some unpleasant stories.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-03, 04:50 PM
Yeah, I've read the stories about Tyson, and his response to them. In my part of the world, "I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person" translates as "I don't have enough information to feel like commenting".
(But, with the correct tone of voice and facial expression, you can actually transform it into a stinging condemnation.)

Grant Hutchison

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-03, 04:53 PM
Sorry, what sort of stories are you guys talking about?

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-03, 05:01 PM
Type neil degrasse tyson harassment into your search engine of choice.

Grant Hutchison

bknight
2019-Jan-03, 05:16 PM
Yeah, I've read the stories about Tyson, and his response to them. In my part of the world, "I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person" translates as "I don't have enough information to feel like commenting".
(But, with the correct tone of voice and facial expression, you can actually transform it into a stinging condemnation.)

Grant Hutchison

That would be my comment on the issue(s)

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-03, 05:25 PM
Type neil degrasse tyson harassment into your search engine of choice.

Grant HutchisonI just did. I don't think it's a good idea to judge people based on a few unsubstantiated stories. We have a legal system for these sorts of things and until the due process says otherwise he should be regarded as innocent.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-03, 06:04 PM
I just did. I don't think it's a good idea to judge people based on a few unsubstantiated stories. We have a legal system for these sorts of things and until the due process says otherwise he should be regarded as innocent (regardless of what the #metoo crowd likes to think).It's complicated. Hence my careful choice of words, which seems not to have achieved the effect I'd hoped.

Grant Hutchison

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-03, 06:30 PM
I don't really like to judge from a couple of stories because things can be misinterpreted by different people and I really don't like judging people from gossip because I have been on the wrong side of that.

When I was at university I has dealing with depression for several reasons. There were times when I would just sit in front of a TV and not really paying attention to what is going on but thinking about a way of ending it all. To some they got focused on the TV not what I was thinking. So to know what someone is thinking is hard. Plus I was dealing with some people who had an overly simple version of mental health.
Also at the time there was a professor who just came in from Berkeley who know a rather famous planet hunter. She said he was a nice guy but she did not work directly with him she studied galaxies. So when it came about that this guy was all hands with the female students under him I was surprised.

Noclevername
2019-Jan-03, 07:44 PM
To me, celebrity scientists are celebrities first and scientists second. Until and unless they have something interesting or profound to say like Sagan, I don't pay them much mind.

Spacedude
2019-Jan-03, 09:22 PM
I think Tyson did ok with the Cosmos series and he is quite passionate on astronomical topics when being interviewed, but his tv show (Startalk?) never did bring me back. He's better at being interviewed rather than being the interviewer.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-04, 12:48 AM
The way to think about is:
Human-scientist-celebrity scientist.

Cougar
2019-Jan-04, 12:54 AM
I like what I've seen of and read from him.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-04, 01:04 AM
The way to think about is:
Human-scientist-celebrity scientist.Well put. Many people forget that he is a human and may have made mistakes in the past. It's hard to find someone who hasn't honestly: even Sagan allegedly had affairs and wrote about his cannabis use. Einstein had writings which may be construed as racist today (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-44472277)

I like to judge him on his work and his efforts in being the Sagan of our age in popularising science and skeptical thinking to a new generation.

Noclevername
2019-Jan-04, 04:26 AM
As he is human, I'll judge him as any human; by his actions, on camera and off.

Statistically, false accusations of sexual harassment are very uncommon. They open the accuser to every sort of scrutiny and negative assumption in this and most societies and are usually the last resort. To casually dismiss such testimony is IMO a disservice.

As for assumption of innocence, it is a component of the legal system, not personal opinions. I am not bound by court decisions which are notoriously fickle and circumstance dependent.

In any case, whether the smoke turns up fire, or if he's vindicated, has yet to be determined.

cosmocrazy
2019-Jan-04, 08:24 AM
Affected portentious gravitas. Whereas I can't bear to watch Brian Cox because of affected portentious bliss. (Equally, I'm sure, a nice and clever person.)
TV producers encourage certain behaviours that make willing or predisposed presenters appear to be entirely up themselves. It's not a good look. Not in our house, anyway.

Grant Hutchison

Though I agree in most with your opinion, I don't mind watching or listening to either Tyson or Cox. They are both passionate about what they do and this translates in their presentations. For me this helps me engage the media content of their discussions with a bit more enthusiasm. I've watched and listened to many presentations by many professors of science and find some, (even though the content was interesting) rather dull, almost monotone so the presentation became mundane. Rightly or wrongly Tyson and cox to some extent keep, me engaged with a little bit of childlike excitement. I realize this is most likely encouraged by the broadcasting companies, after all they are only interested in making money from viewers and listeners. But I believe this approach gains the interest from people who would probably not normally show interest in science, especially children.

I have been given tickets, as a Christmas present, to go and see Brian Cox live in Nottingham in February. Though I wouldn't necessarily go out and buy these tickets for such a live show, I'm actually quite looking forward to it.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-04, 03:55 PM
When we are in an age where the flat earthers are coming back we need as many people as possible to spread the word of SCIENCE.

CJSF
2019-Jan-04, 04:37 PM
When we are in an age where the flat earthers are coming back we need as many people as possible to spread the word of SCIENCE.

Even if they are serial abusers/assaulters? I assure you, the salvation of the human race doesn't rest on one person's shoulders or on a Cosmos reboot.

CJSF

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-04, 05:37 PM
Even if they are serial abusers/assaulters? I assure you, the salvation of the human race doesn't rest on one person's shoulders or on a Cosmos reboot.

CJSFThere's no evidence NDT is a serial abuser/assaulter. We have a legal system that determines that. By assuming that he is - based on hearsay - you are making the world a scary place where anyone can ruin anyone else's career by making false claims.

publiusr
2019-Jan-04, 07:09 PM
I seem to remember him thinking the internal combustion engine (ICE) were on the way out. (new COSMOS series)

I don't think so. Energy density alone means hydrocarbons aren't going anywhere.

Another rising star is Mr. Pogue:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/search-for-the-super-battery/

Something about that documentary worried me. There, we see the presenter cut pieces out of a "battery" and it still worked. But I thought to myself ( a battery could have been secreted inside the voltimeter, and as long as he didn't cut between the electrodes, he'd still have some current.

The new batteries were supposed to be flame resistant.

But from what little I understand--you increase energy density--and those electrons want out--by combustion if not discharge....

Watch the end of that doco and tell me if you think the battery there is legit.

Swift
2019-Jan-04, 07:53 PM
I seem to remember him thinking the internal combustion engine (ICE) were on the way out. (new COSMOS series)

I don't think so. Energy density alone means hydrocarbons aren't going anywhere.

Another rising star is Mr. Pogue:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/search-for-the-super-battery/

Something about that documentary worried me. There, we see the presenter cut pieces out of a "battery" and it still worked. But I thought to myself ( a battery could have been secreted inside the voltimeter, and as long as he didn't cut between the electrodes, he'd still have some current.

The new batteries were supposed to be flame resistant.

But from what little I understand--you increase energy density--and those electrons want out--by combustion if not discharge....

Watch the end of that doco and tell me if you think the battery there is legit.
Not in this thread. This is a complete derailment of the thread and a possible, unreferenced Cosmos mention on internal combustion engines does not make a connection. If you want to discuss battery technology, start your own thread.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-04, 09:33 PM
Even if they are serial abusers/assaulters? I assure you, the salvation of the human race doesn't rest on one person's shoulders or on a Cosmos reboot.

CJSF
Never said it did, but there is an almost constant attack on science nowadays. There are plenty of scientist doing outreach and other activities.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-04, 09:54 PM
There's no evidence NDT is a serial abuser/assaulter.Well, witness testimony is generally considered to be evidence. How we respond to that evidence is complicated. At present it's polarized when it probably needs to be nuanced.

Grant Hutchison

CJSF
2019-Jan-04, 11:05 PM
There's no evidence NDT is a serial abuser/assaulter. We have a legal system that determines that. By assuming that he is - based on hearsay - you are making the world a scary place where anyone can ruin anyone else's career by making false claims.

Of course, this is preferable to all the women whose careers in science and technology (and elsewhere) were cut short because abuse and harassment were not addressed nor taken seriously. Noted. I say take the victims at face value and let an investigation sort it out. As has been pointed out (and is backed by years of evidence) false claims are very rare, while actual abuse and harassment - the kinds that end careers and ruin lives - are rampant.

CJSF

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-04, 11:20 PM
Of course, this is preferable to all the women whose careers in science and technology (and elsewhere) were cut short because abuse and harassment were not addressed nor taken seriously.


Have you heard of the straw man argument? Your comment is classic example of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



As has been pointed out (and is backed by years of evidence) false claims are very rare, while actual abuse and harassment - the kinds that end careers and ruin lives - are rampant.

CJSF



This is irrelevant. Even if there has been zero false accusations since recorded history there is still a possibility that there would be one in this case.

I think we are both agreeing that "we don't know the real truth", however I'm awaiting judgement until a proper legal process investigates the allegations while you seem to imply we should jump into judging someone's character before the due process is conducted. Can you see how your line of reasoning can be problematic?

Jens
2019-Jan-05, 07:25 AM
Well put. Many people forget that he is a human and may have made mistakes in the past. It's hard to find someone who hasn't honestly: even Sagan allegedly had affairs and wrote about his cannabis use.

If the affairs were with consenting adults then to me there is no comparison. And for cannabis use as well. If he was selling it to children, thatís different, but otherwise itís doing something to your own body, which to me is very different from harassment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jens
2019-Jan-05, 07:31 AM
Einstein had writings which may be construed as racist today (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-44472277)


Sorry, but conflating writings in a private diary with harassment just seems absurd to me. It seems clear to me that anyone has the right to write whatever they want in their diaries, and honestly itís nobody elseís business. But you absolutely do not the right to harass people.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-05, 06:43 PM
Of course, this is preferable to all the women whose careers in science and technology (and elsewhere) were cut short because abuse and harassment were not addressed nor taken seriouslyHave you heard of the straw man argument? Your comment is classic example of it.Not remotely a straw man argument, though (ironically enough) your invocation of "straw man" in that regard is a bit of a straw man.
CJSF's concern is the opposite side of the coin to your concern - they're inextricably linked to each other. To what extent are we prepared to tolerate one injustice (lives ruined by false accusations and trial-by-social-media) in order to address another injustice (lives ruined by institutionalized bullying, harassment and assault)? You can't address one without increasing the risk of the other. Life is full of these tensions and trade-offs.

Grant Hutchison

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-05, 06:48 PM
Sorry, but conflating writings in a private diary with harassment just seems absurd to me. It seems clear to me that anyone has the right to write whatever they want in their diaries, and honestly it’s nobody else’s business. But you absolutely do not the right to harass people.And, like the comment about Sagan, it's an application of the tu quoque fallacy. Even if Sagan and Einstein had been convicted serial killers, the fact that they commited certain offences in no way excuses or justifies someone else who commits similar acts.

Grant Hutchison

CJSF
2019-Jan-06, 12:09 AM
Not remotely a straw man argument, though (ironically enough) your invocation of "straw man" in that regard is a bit of a straw man.
CJSF's concern is the opposite side of the coin to your concern - they're inextricably linked to each other. To what extent are we prepared to tolerate one injustice (lives ruined by false accusations and trial-by-social-media) in order to address another injustice (lives ruined by institutionalized bullying, harassment and assault)? You can't address one without increasing the risk of the other. Life is full of these tensions and trade-offs.

Grant Hutchison

Yes. And more explicitly: It's telling the type of society we live in (a patriarchy) that we want to assume that protecting the (usually) man is more important than supporting the (usually) woman, in these cases. Why is his reputation and career automatically more important than hers? Historically that's how this plays out. And we have seen by cases like Louis CK and a multitude of sports stars that men on the whole weather these incidents - even when accepting guilt - better than their victims (real or alleged).

CJSF

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-06, 01:01 AM
Not remotely a straw man argument, though (ironically enough) your invocation of "straw man" in that regard is a bit of a straw man.
CJSF's concern is the opposite side of the coin to your concern - they're inextricably linked to each other. To what extent are we prepared to tolerate one injustice (lives ruined by false accusations and trial-by-social-media) in order to address another injustice (lives ruined by institutionalized bullying, harassment and assault)? You can't address one without increasing the risk of the other. Life is full of these tensions and trade-offs.

Grant HutchisonI'm not asking for any injustice to be tolerated. All I'm saying is that we should await investigation by people whose job it is to do so (the legal system) before expressing judgement. I find it incredible that in a forum which advocates the scientific method there is such a strong opposition to what I'm expressing.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-06, 01:07 AM
Yes. And more explicitly: It's telling the type of society we live in (a patriarchy) that we want to assume that protecting the (usually) man is more important than supporting the (usually) woman, in these cases. Why is his reputation and career automatically more important than hers? Historically that's how this plays out. And we have seen by cases like Louis CK and a multitude of sports stars that men on the whole weather these incidents - even when accepting guilt - better than their victims (real or alleged).

CJSFI feel like my message has been highly distorted - as if I'm somehow saying harassment is ok. This is not true. Also why are we making this into a gender issue? This was nowhere in the comments I made.

I will excuse myself from the thread I started because I feel that it is not productive to continue, and the original discussions is derailed.

Jens
2019-Jan-06, 01:16 AM
I'm not asking for any injustice to be tolerated. All I'm saying is that we should await investigation by people whose job it is to do so (the legal system) before expressing judgement. I find it incredible that in a forum which advocates the scientific method there is such a strong opposition to what I'm expressing.

Just to be clear, I don't advocate at all punishing a person before an investigation is concluded. I'm not sure that anybody else is either. About having personal opinions or guesses, while I'm not sure whether that goes against the scientific method. The scientific method is to have a hypothesis and then test it. At this point, people are perhaps just floating hypotheses.

Jens
2019-Jan-06, 01:20 AM
I feel like my message has been highly distorted - as if I'm somehow saying harassment is ok. This is not true. Also why are we making this into a gender issue? This was nowhere in the comments I made.

I will excuse myself from the thread I started because I feel that it is not productive to continue, and the original discussions is derailed.

Also, I am sorry if you feel that you were misunderstood, and understand you didn't mean to say that harassment is OK. About making it into a gender issue, there are accusations of sexual harassment so it is by nature a gender issue. Also, since the OP was asking what people think of him, I don't really see this as a derailment. And again, I should make it clear that I don't know if he is really guilty of the accusations.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-06, 01:47 AM
Not remotely a straw man argument, though (ironically enough) your invocation of "straw man" in that regard is a bit of a straw man.
CJSF's concern is the opposite side of the coin to your concern - they're inextricably linked to each other. To what extent are we prepared to tolerate one injustice (lives ruined by false accusations and trial-by-social-media) in order to address another injustice (lives ruined by institutionalized bullying, harassment and assault)? You can't address one without increasing the risk of the other. Life is full of these tensions and trade-offs.

Grant HutchisonI'm not asking for any injustice to be tolerated. All I'm saying is that we should await investigation by people whose job it is to do so (the legal system) before expressing judgement. I find it incredible that in a forum which advocates the scientific method there is such a strong opposition to what I'm expressing.But we always have to tolerate injustice, because our legal system cannot decide truth or falsity with perfect accuracy. So someone will always be dealt with unjustly.
And that means we need to trade off our society's set-point for what sort of injustice we'd rather have. For a long time, what we had was people remaining silent about bullying and harassment and assault, because speaking out would make their lives worse. That's unjust. Now people are speaking out more readily, though perhaps still not to any great benefit to themselves. But certainly by speaking out, they make the lives of those accused of this behaviour worse. Those who are falsely accused are undoubtedly being treated unjustly, particularly because it is now possible to make accusations very publicly and beyond the control of the legal system, using social media. And, by the very nature of bullying and harassment and assault, independent evidence may be hard or impossible to come by, leaving the legal system incapable of making anything like a definitive guilty/innocent pronouncement.
So things are uncertain and complicated, and attitudes are polarized.

If you look back at everything I've written here, all I've been advocating is:
a) Not making judgements unless you've carefully reviewed all the evidence.
b) Not making logical errors when assessing statements made by others.

So, pretty much the scientific method in action.

Grant Hutchison

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-06, 02:34 AM
Has anyone here even read NDT's response to the accusations?

https://m.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

He earnestly goes through each accusation. Based on his explanations it seems like he is being targeted unfairly and opportunistically.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-06, 02:56 AM
Has anyone here even read NDT's response to the accusations?Sure have. I said that quite clearly in post #8 (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?171310-What-do-you-think-of-Neil-degrasse-Tyson&p=2472186#post2472186).
I've also read statements by his accusers, or reports thereof.
What I don't have access to is any supporting evidence on either side, like witness statements or documents.

There's an investigation of sorts underway, which may well have access to extra information, and which may or may not report publicly.

So I'm not remotely in a position to decide whether or not Tyson has been unfairly accused, nor would I want to hazard any opinion on whether his accusers are opportunistic in any way.

(Given that I am, by upbringing and predisposition, very much not a socially tactile person, I do find I have to suppress an automatic aversive response to some of the things Tyson describes doing. But I'm aware that says something about me, as much as it says something about him.)

Grant Hutchison

Hop_David
2019-Jan-06, 02:57 AM
Tyson is a source of misinformation.

He will study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often wrong.

This leads to bad math (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-science/neil-degrasse-tyson-doing-a-disservice-t53874.html) as well as bad physics (https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/7p6ddh/ndt_on_zeno_effect_and_uncertainty_principle/). But this is merely annoying. So Tyson tells Joe Rogan's stoner dude audience that there are more transcendentals than irrationals. Who cares?

Much worse is when Tyson uses his poor memory and strong confirmation bias to invent histories. And then use his bad history to support his political talking points. He has done this on a number of occasions. See my post Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html)



When we are in an age where the flat earthers are coming back we need as many people as possible to spread the word of SCIENCE.

Most flat earthers are trolls, in my opinion. Trolling is a great way to get free publicity.

Tyson's solution? Feed the trolls. He is the best publicist B.o.B. ever had.

Go to Google Trends and search for Flat Earth. You will see interest took off when Tyson started arguing with B.o.B.

Regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson: I don't know if the allegations are true or false. So I will remain agnostic for now.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-06, 03:53 AM
Tyson is a source of misinformation.

He will study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often wrong.

This leads to bad math (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-science/neil-degrasse-tyson-doing-a-disservice-t53874.html) as well as bad physics (https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/7p6ddh/ndt_on_zeno_effect_and_uncertainty_principle/). But this is merely annoying. So Tyson tells Joe Rogan's stoner dude audience that there are more transcendentals than irrationals. Who cares?

Much worse is when Tyson uses his poor memory and strong confirmation bias to invent histories. And then use his bad history to support his political talking points. He has done this on a number of occasions. See my post Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html)




Most flat earthers are trolls, in my opinion. Trolling is a great way to get free publicity.

Tyson's solution? Feed the trolls. He is the best publicist B.o.B. ever had.

Go to Google Trends and search for Flat Earth. You will see interest took off when Tyson started arguing with B.o.B.

Regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson: I don't know if the allegations are true or false. So I will remain agnostic for now.
The problem isn't whether or not that Flat Earthers are trolls or not, but the people that ending up supporting them.
I am not getting into your issues with Neil degrasse Tyson because some of it seems a bit political.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-06, 04:02 AM
I think some of the points you seem to mistaken an off the cuff remark with something scholarly. Newton did had differential calculus figured out long before Halley came and asked him about comets. Plus hopefully it gets people interested in science and start to read get educated in it. I don't want to get into a big battle over it now because I am tired from unloading a truck and reloading again today.

Jens
2019-Jan-06, 06:23 AM
He earnestly goes through each accusation. Based on his explanations it seems like he is being targeted unfairly and opportunistically.

First of all, Iím not going to criticize you for having jumped to conclusions without having all the facts, because as I wrote earlier, everybody, including you, has the right to come to their own conclusions even without all the facts. Youíre coming to your own hypothesis, too, and I donít think youíre being unscientific to do so.

What I will get on your case about is the conclusion that the accusations were opportunistic. At least one of the incidents involved alcohol, and people can remember the same incident very differently without trying to be unfair. He and the women may honestly remember things differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Van Rijn
2019-Jan-06, 08:29 AM
Has anyone here even read NDT's response to the accusations?


Yes, I read it a week or two ago. Perhaps you're not aware, but some have condemned him based on some of the things he said there. I've seen very polarized opinions for and against him referencing the same quoted statements.

A couple of my thoughts:

(1) He really should have continued to stay silent, or at least said far less. As a general rule, if you're being accused of something, you really should say as little as possible, because what you say will be used against you, whether you're innocent or not.

(2) I can easily see, based on statements, how in some of those cases, he and the women involved could have different interpretations of the same events. It doesn't necessarily make one party right and the other wrong. As far me, I really need to see more information to come to a conclusion.



(Given that I am, by upbringing and predisposition, very much not a socially tactile person, I do find I have to suppress an automatic aversive response to some of the things Tyson describes doing. But I'm aware that says something about me, as much as it says something about him.)


I don't watch him very much, but based on some of his TV appearances, he strikes me as more inclined to touch people and enter (what I'd consider) personal space of both men and women than I would in similar social settings. I wouldn't call it terribly unusual behavior, just a bit different from how I would act. I can see how different (but not necessarily wrong) ideas about acceptable boundaries *might* result in some of the issues mentioned.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-06, 11:50 AM
I think some of the dislike he gets is also possibly due to his ethnicity. Some folks simply don't like seeing a successful black scientist who is smarter than them.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-06, 11:57 AM
I think some of the dislike he gets is also possibly due to his ethnicity. Some folks simply don't like seeing a successful black scientist who is smarter than them.I imagine you're right. But that is literally the first time I've thought of him as being "black", particularly.

Grant Hutchison

Hop_David
2019-Jan-06, 12:41 PM
I think some of the points you seem to mistaken an off the cuff remark with something scholarly. Newton did had differential calculus figured out long before Halley came and asked him about comets. Plus hopefully it gets people interested in science and start to read get educated in it. I don't want to get into a big battle over it now because I am tired from unloading a truck and reloading again today.

Off the cuff remark? It's a story Tyson has told many times. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ) is one of Tyson's better known vids.

Quick summary: Friend asks Newton about elliptical orbits. Newton goes home, invents calculus, and comes back two months later with the answer. And then Newton turns 26.

Well, Halley asked the question about elliptical orbits when Newton was 41. Newton came back two years later with the rough draft from Principia. And Principia was published when Newton was 45.

So if Newton didn't invent calculus because of a "dare" from Halley, what prompted him to make his calculus contributions? He got much of his calculus from Isaac Barrow, his colleague at Cambridge. Barrow, Fermat, Cavalieri, Descartes and others had laid the foundations of calculus in the generation before Newton and Leibniz.

Most of Tyson's stuff on Newton is bull. See Thony Christie disembowel Tyson's bad history (https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/why-doesnt-he-just-shut-up/)

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-06, 03:18 PM
I could also mention Tyson's cluelessness about medicine, in particular the field of epidemiology. Being clueless about medicine is of course pretty common, and I think about as common in physicists as cluelessness about physics is among medics. But in that regard, Tyson seems to be almost a type specimen for the Dunning-Kruger effect (https://oikofuge.com/kruger-dunning-unskilled-and-unaware-of-it/).
His riff on "idiot doctors" at one of The Amazing Meetings was a catalogue of hopeless errors, and came over as more embittered than informed.

Edit: Oh, here's the relevant section of his TAM talk, if anyone wants to see what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5X64QCDVnI&t=0s&list=PLBDBC78EF8B22B179&index=6
I'd guess a lot of people here will be able to pick out the logical and factual errors for themselves, but I'll be happy to help if anyone is in any doubt.

Grant Hutchison

swampyankee
2019-Jan-06, 03:55 PM
When we are in an age where the flat earthers are coming back we need as many people as possible to spread the word of SCIENCE.

Excusing someone's [alleged] bad behavior because he or she is promulgating a position one agrees with is an excellent way of damaging that position. If, as is not unlikely, the harassment claims are valid, the first move should be apology, then some form of atonement. Circling the wagons, laagering up, and ignoring misbehavior is why the Church has been paying huge amounts of damages to victims and has caused devaluation of their teachings about morality.

Hop_David
2019-Jan-06, 04:00 PM
I could also mention Tyson's cluelessness about medicine, in particular the field of epidemiology. Being clueless about medicine is of course pretty common, and I think about as common in physicists as cluelessness about physics is among medics. But in that regard, Tyson seems to be almost a type specimen for the Dunning-Kruger effect (https://oikofuge.com/kruger-dunning-unskilled-and-unaware-of-it/).
His riff on "idiot doctors" at one of The Amazing Meetings was a catalogue of hopeless errors, and came over as more embittered than informed.

Edit: Oh, here's the relevant section of his TAM talk, if anyone wants to see what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5X64QCDVnI&t=0s&list=PLBDBC78EF8B22B179&index=6
I'd guess a lot of people here will be able to pick out the logical and factual errors for themselves, but I'll be happy to help if anyone is in any doubt.

Grant Hutchison

Yeah, his schtick on idiot doctors is on my list of Tyson flubs. Tyson on idiot doctors (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html#IdiotDoctors)

Well known skeptic Dr. Novella called this out (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/doctor-bashing/) after hearing it at TAM6. Scroll to "Those Darn Physicists".

But other than that bit Novella thought Tyson's TAM6 keynote address was an "excellent skeptical lecture". However that same lecture Tyson dropped numerous steaming piles on the stage: The Bush and Star Names story (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html#GeorgeBush), his bad history on Hamid al Ghazali and the Islamic Golden Age (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html#HamidAlGhazali), as well as his bad history on Newton vs Laplace (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html#Newton).

All these piles were received with enthusiastic applause. And this is at James Randi's The Amazing Meeting conference for skeptics. A community that is constantly bragging about their ability to detect [language]. Tyson has done more to discredit this skeptic credulous community than a hostile challenger could ever hope to do.

Gillianren
2019-Jan-06, 04:22 PM
It's also not unusual for people guilty of a crime to lie, so I'm not sure why "he said it didn't happen that way" should be considered definitive. Maybe he's right--though there's actually, to my understanding, documentation of a few complaints that shows he isn't--but "he explains it differently" is not persuasive to me.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-06, 05:56 PM
It's also not unusual for people guilty of a crime to lie, so I'm not sure why "he said it didn't happen that way" should be considered definitive.Does the phrase "Mandy Rice-Davies applies" have any currency in North America?
It's a reference to the Profumo scandal in the UK in the early 1960s. When a defence lawyer pointed out to the eponymous MRD (on the witness stand at the time) that Lord Astor denied ever having met her, let alone having had an affair with her, she laughed and replied, "Well he would, wouldn't he?"

Grant Hutchison

Gillianren
2019-Jan-07, 04:10 PM
It doesn't, but I'm delighted to learn it. It's not wrong.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-07, 05:35 PM
Looks like Nat Geo has pulled his program pending the investigation. I hope the same thing will not happen to the Cosmos series - I like watching it and it would be a real shame to cancel the new season.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-07, 06:10 PM
General, innocent until proven guilty.

Grant, maybe Tyson had issues with some pre-med students that colored his impressions of them. When I was in school there were people who decided to get their undergrad physics or maths instead of biology. Nothing wrong with that. One of these people had a huge issue with computers (mid 90's), she really didn't really wanted to anything to do with them. Her honors thesis was in taken MRI's of stuff like shellfish it needed code to be written for it, she got one of the lab techs to do it. I personally don't think she should of gotten her Honors degree she got someone else to do the work.

Hops David and Tyson, read Calculus Wars. Newton or Leibniz both worked off of others peoples work. Newton concentrated on the movement of particles. While Leibniz had an idea about thoughts were made out of tiny little bits that added up and got into the Paris library and eventually met Huygens and well that was that. It is a lot more complicated because Hooke didn't like Newtons idea about light and throw out his whole book on out including his theory of fluxions. Maybe Tyson heard it was all on a dare from a professor when he was in school.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-07, 06:44 PM
Grant, maybe Tyson had issues with some pre-med students that colored his impressions of them.Given how little he apparently knows about medical training and practice, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if premed students had issues with him. There are few things more frustrating than being taught by someone who doesn't understand your educational needs or future training trajectory, and who is nevertheless happy to denigrate your career choice. To be honest, someone with such ill-informed opinions should be excluded from the medical training programme.

I didn't go through the pre-med year, but it's a common experience that basic scientists don't have a grasp on how much of their subject is actually completely irrelevant to most medical practice. My Wife the Professor would be the first to admit that she is hopeless at physics, and only made it through the physics component of her pre-med year because her flatmate's boyfriend was a physics student who gave them private tuition. She hasn't used a single bit of physics in her clinical and academic practice for decades, and that would be the experience of most medical doctors outside of a few specialties like my own.
Pre-med physics is largely a waste of everyone's time, except insofar as it:
a) Tests your ability to organize and retain information
b) Tests your ability to perform simple mathematical operations reliably
c) Lays some groundwork that makes cardiorespiratory physiology easier to assimilate (after which the physics tends to be forgotten by most doctors)

Some physicists teaching pre-med courses understand this; only a very few actually also understand the physiology that will be built on the foundations they provide.

Grant Hutchison

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-07, 09:39 PM
Over here most places require you to get a full undergrad to go into medicine so I was about people who got a full physics or math degrees. Most people do this because it looks better to the admin departments then just a biology degree, but a biology degree would probably be more useful. The person above got a bio-physics degree. So they took the regular physics for physics students not a premed version of medicine. At this university there was a special version of first year physics for engineers, it was shortened because they probably be taken a lot of physics in their own courses. But one experiment was there is ball tied to string with a counter weight going straight down. You spin the ball over your head, simulating an orbit, one question was what happens if you cut the string. One person said it would still go around in orbit.

Delvo
2019-Jan-07, 10:41 PM
To me, the inaccuracies when he wanders out of astrophysics and into something else like medicine or history are a specific part of a bigger general thing what keeps me from being a fan. He wouldn't create the opportunity for inaccuracy if he wouldn't meander around like that in the first place. And when he does meander, just as a matter of style, I don't like how long & slow it is or how much the point seems to be about how he feels or expects the audience to feel about the story he's telling.

This is based on short interviews, Startalk clips, and auditorium speeches. It might be different if I had seen his long-form TV documentaries.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-07, 10:47 PM
Over here most places require you to get a full undergrad to go into medicine ...Yeah, I know. I worked and taught at McMaster in Ontario for a while. The North American model of a premed degree is a deep mystery in the rest of the world, but it still commonly involves a "track" that's supposed to prepare a person for learning medicine - it just takes forever to get through.
My point about pre-med physics applies to either the North American or UK model, though. If you want to learn physics, learn physics. If you want to learn medicine, learn a targeted amount of foundational physics, and don't tolerate any crap from physics professors. Much of the nonsense American and Canadian premed students have to put up with is driven by the competition to enter medical school, rather than a sensible educational trajectory.

Grant Hutchison

Hop_David
2019-Jan-07, 11:34 PM
Maybe Tyson heard it was all on a dare from a professor when he was in school.

I rather doubt it. I give many examples of Tyson misremembering stuff (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html) and filling in the gaps with his imagination.

He wildly exaggerates Newton's accomplishments. See Thony Christie's The Wrong Question (http://guestblog.scientopia.org/2011/03/05/ich-bin-ein-gastblogger-ii-the-wrong-question/) and Why Doesn't He Just Shut Up? (https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/why-doesnt-he-just-shut-up/).

Which would be merely annoying if he didn't use this to make one of his political points. Supposedly an agnostic Newton could have done Laplace's perturbation theory in an afternoon. After all Newton is the super human guy who invented calculus in two months. On a dare. But supposedly Newton didn't bother because he was satisified with the explanation that God keeps the solar system stable.

I don't mind criticizing religion if it's fact based. But Tyson's cautionary tales against religion are based on bad history. He should be called out.

Tyson is a source of misinformation.

Hop_David
2019-Jan-07, 11:47 PM
To me, the inaccuracies when he wanders out of astrophysics and into something else like medicine or history are a specific part of a bigger general thing what keeps me from being a fan.

He makes mistakes in basic physics as well.

For example his calling out the spin gravity in 2001 A Space Odyssey's rotating space station. According to Tyson the station spins three times too fast and so someone would weigh triple what they do on earth. Two things wrong with that.

1) Do the math for a 150 meter radius station making a revolution each 61 seconds and you will get 1/6 g. Which is what Clarke and Kubrick intended since the station was a stop on the way to the moon.

2) Also spin grav is ω2 r. So if the station spun three times too fast, you would weigh nine times too much. This is freshman physics.

There are other examples. This one is especially annoying to me since Clarke and Kubrick were sticklers for accuracy. And I'm a huge fan of Clarke.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-08, 12:08 AM
Yikes, I was willing to ignore the allegations against him, but the fact that he seems to get his physics wrong is hard to forgive.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-08, 12:15 AM
Just FYI these are the tweets from the lady who has accused him of rape. I'll leave you to judge. (Warning: NSFW language)

https://ibb.co/n3VXBkC

The_Radiation_Specialist
2019-Jan-08, 12:29 AM
And this is the photo from one of the allegations. He was merely looking for the tattoo of Pluto on her shoulder. (Picture is safe for work).

https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/780/2018/11/PictureofNDTandKatelyn-1.png

Please tell me why he deserves to have his career and reputation damaged because of something that is at worst a minor faux pas to be fixed by an apology.

I think that the #metoo movement is doing themselves a disservice by implying things like this deserve the same level of outage as actual sexual assaults. It destroys the credibility of the movement and is counter protective to real cases of illegal abuse.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-08, 12:36 AM
Just FYI these are the tweets from the lady who has accused him of rape. I'll leave you to judge. (Warning: NSFW language)
Hmmm. Earlier on this thread:

... I'm awaiting judgement until a proper legal process investigates the allegations while you seem to imply we should jump into judging someone's character before the due process is conducted. Can you see how your line of reasoning can be problematic?
What happened there?

Grant Hutchison

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-08, 12:40 AM
I just went to his website and checked when he was last published with research and it has been about 20 years. Maybe he is just rusty because he has spent most of that time as an admin at the Hayden Planetarium and science spokes man.

Van Rijn
2019-Jan-08, 01:03 AM
And this is the photo from one of the allegations. He was merely looking for the tattoo of Pluto on her shoulder. (Picture is safe for work).

https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/780/2018/11/PictureofNDTandKatelyn-1.png

Please tell me why he deserves to have his career and reputation damaged because of something that is at worst a minor faux pas to be fixed by an apology.


Is that picture the basis of the groping claim? (I don't know, I'm asking). I thought the claim was that his hand roved under her clothes, and if so, there may or may not be photos or other witnesses.

Van Rijn
2019-Jan-08, 01:18 AM
Just FYI these are the tweets from the lady who has accused him of rape. I'll leave you to judge. (Warning: NSFW language)

https://ibb.co/n3VXBkC

Those appear to be tweets collected by someone else I suspect to have an agenda, and generally my response to it is "okay, so what?"

I did see a bit from this woman when her claim was mentioned on the Patheos site, and she does seem to say some things that strike me as a bit strange, but then that's a very common experience for me - I have close relatives where I could say the same. It isn't something I'd want to base an opinion on in regards to the rape allegation, and I think it was a poor idea (from a public relations standpoint at least) for Tyson to allude to it in his statement.

I'm going to need to see something more significant to come to any conclusion on this issue. The most I will say is that I'm not going to assume his guilt because there are allegations. I will need to see something substantial.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-08, 01:38 AM
Is that picture the basis of the groping claim? (I don't know, I'm asking). I thought the claim was that his hand roved under her clothes, and if so, there may or may not be photos or other witnesses.The picture is not the basis for the groping claim. The offending actions allegedly took place after the photo was taken. Allers gave a phone interview to a journalist (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/two-more-women-accuse-neil-degrasse-tyson-of-sexual-misconduct/) who quotes her as saying:

After we had taken the picture, he noticed my tattoo and kind of grabbed me to look at it, and was really obsessed about whether I had Pluto on this tattoo or not… and then he looked for Pluto, and followed the tattoo into my dress.

My experience with him is he’s not someone who has great respect for female bodily autonomy
There are more reflections on the reported experience, by Allers and others, at the end of my link.

Grant Hutchison

Van Rijn
2019-Jan-08, 01:44 AM
Ah, interesting. Thanks Grant.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-08, 01:55 AM
I wonder what would happen if he saw a tattoo on a guy he liked what he would do?

The only astronomy spokes man that hasn't gotten into trouble is Phil. I guess that is the advantage of living most of the time on a ranch with goats and horses, their not going to say anything.

Hop_David
2019-Jan-08, 04:02 AM
Yikes, I was willing to ignore the allegations against him, but the fact that he seems to get his physics wrong is hard to forgive.

Well actually... botching basic math and physics is pretty embarrassing if you're supposedly the face of science.

And trying to rewrite history is a serious offense. More serious than putting the moves on one of your subordinates, in my opinion. Although Amet's rape allegations would trump that if they were true.

KaiYeves
2019-Jan-08, 04:39 AM
I wonder what would happen if he saw a tattoo on a guy he liked what he would do?

The only astronomy spokes man that hasn't gotten into trouble is Phil. I guess that is the advantage of living most of the time on a ranch with goats and horses, their not going to say anything.

Don't jinx it!

Jim
2019-Jan-08, 12:48 PM
Folks, let's try to keep the discussion around science ... how Tyson presents it. This forum is not a good place to discuss - and definitely not to litigate - the misconduct allegations against him.

Hop_David
2019-Jan-08, 12:50 PM
The only astronomy spokes man that hasn't gotten into trouble is Phil. I guess that is the advantage of living most of the time on a ranch with goats and horses, their not going to say anything.

Pop science celebrities are growing cliques like IFLS (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd). They are making America even dumber.

Has anyone else seen Phil's TV show? There was a segment where Phil was saying it's tough to endure sustained acceleration and that's why we haven't sent more humans to the moon or Mars. If memory serves, Phil was saying it would take 3 or 4 days at 3 g's to reach the moon. I am hoping to make a You Tube vid on this.

I did a critique (http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/11/lamentable-lagrange-articles.html) on one of Fraser Cain's pieces awhile back.

Carl Sagan's critics were wary of pop science. They were anxious that the need to entertain would take precedence over rigor and accuracy. Their fears have been realized.

CJSF
2019-Jan-08, 02:51 PM
I wonder what would happen if he saw a tattoo on a guy he liked what he would do?

The only astronomy spokes man that hasn't gotten into trouble is Phil. I guess that is the advantage of living most of the time on a ranch with goats and horses, their not going to say anything.

You realize that Phil has only moved to a ranch comparatively recently? Prior to that, he lived in Virginia and California. And I don't know that he's the only astronomy spokesman that hasn't gotten into trouble. Fraser Cain springs to mind and there are others.

More to the point of this thread (beyond the accusations), I always found Tyson's demeanor on camera to be pretentious. Some of the statements he's made outside of astronomy, particularly on Twitter, have been questionable (though maybe just simplified for the medium sometimes). When he has been wrong, it always bothered me that he didn't seem to admit it or even address it. That seems a little arrogant to me.

CJSF

schlaugh
2019-Jan-08, 03:10 PM
Has anyone else seen Phil's TV show? There was a segment where Phil was saying it's tough to endure sustained acceleration and that's why we haven't sent more humans to the moon or Mars. If memory serves, Phil was saying it would take 3 or 4 days at 3 g's to reach the moon.


Not sure I have. To which show and episode are you referring?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-08, 04:24 PM
More to the point of this thread (beyond the accusations), I always found Tyson's demeanor on camera to be pretentious.That's what renders him unwatchable for me - I had to turn Cosmos off after 20 minutes (though I wasn't feeling engaged by the content and visual presentation, either).
His manner seems to be different, in the way Delvo describes, when he's making a public appearance. The clip I linked to, from his address at TAM6, shows a sort of strange rambling going on, which I find equally annoying, even if he were talking about something I found interesting or defensible.

Grant Hutchison

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-08, 06:10 PM
Schlaugh, he is referring to Bad Universe, I think the claim Hop David was talking about was dealt with right after the episode aired about 9 years ago.

Hop David.
I don't like IFLS I think they are one of worst click baity sites out there. Whether or not the fans of that site likes I, Carly or not does not mean I thing. (One of our long time posters has a daughter that auditioned for the show. )

The people who did not like Carl Sagan popularizing science because they were being a bunch of stuck up, arrogant, self righteous [can't say one forums].

You seem intelligent but angry. I don't know why you are angry but deal with it.

CSJF
Have a sense humor. There are a lot more science communicators out there then just Phil and Tyson.

Swift
2019-Jan-08, 06:27 PM
Schlaugh, he is referring to Bad Universe, I think the claim Hop David was talking about was dealt with right after the episode aired about 9 years ago.

Hop David.
I don't like IFLS I think they are one of worst click baity sites out there. Whether or not the fans of that site likes I, Carly or not does not mean I thing. (One of our long time posters has a daughter that auditioned for the show. )

The people who did not like Carl Sagan popularizing science because they were being a bunch of stuck up, arrogant, self righteous [can't say one forums].

You seem intelligent but angry. I don't know why you are angry but deal with it.

CSJF
Have a sense humor. There are a lot more science communicators out there then just Phil and Tyson.
The Backroad Astronomer

You seem to be the one who is inappropriately angry. Do not accuse other members of anger issues or lacking a sense of humor.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-08, 06:41 PM
Sorry didn't mean to come across as angry.
I meant to CJSF I know Phil moved to Colorado over a decade ago and I was just joking.

To Hop David
I think it is just more than just a few errors that is driving his issues with Tyson.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-08, 07:53 PM
I think I will back down on this topic for 24 hours.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-09, 07:55 PM
The people who did not like Carl Sagan popularizing science because they were being a bunch of stuck up, arrogant, self righteous [can't say one forums].Not being entirely fair to people like Harold Urey, there.
These folk had legitimate concerns, which are still legitimate concerns today with people like Tyson and Cox - that an unbalanced view is presented, with "Wow!" being favoured over any real presentation of the issues, and with ideas not just being over-simplified, but the fact that they are being oversimplified being concealed. (And there were real concerns that Sagan was doing this in his professional life as well as his "Sagan Circus" presentations.)

How many times have you encountered someone who excitedly conveyed some AMAZING thing they'd learned from a popular science thread on television, and found yourself saying, "Well, that's not the whole story, really."

I'm not convinced that television "science popularizers" actually popularize science at all. They popularize something adjacent to science which looks a bit like science.

Grant Hutchison

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-09, 09:47 PM
The thing is that the person who pays for most science is the tax payer. It is a bit unfair to pay for something and not understand what you are paying for. Plus if you want new scientist, engineers and doctors you need to get people excited about early in life.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-09, 10:14 PM
The thing is that the person who pays for most science is the tax payer. It is a bit unfair to pay for something and not understand what you are paying for. Plus if you want new scientist, engineers and doctors you need to get people excited about early in life.So the story goes. But does the current trend in TV science programming actually deliver on that? Or are we simply delivering science-themed entertainment? That's the serious question people have been asking ever since Urey commented adversely on the Sagan Circus.
And people were getting excited about science (real science) long before there were TV shows and celebrity science presenters. No-one ever said, "Oh, there's a terrible lack of interest in science - what we need are some television programmes to fix that." We have no cohort study comparing interest in science in children with and without exposure to TV science shows - we just have a narrative in which science graduates fondly remember the science shows of their childhood, and then make the (grossly unscientific) assumption that therefore science shows must increase interest in science; whereas the arrow of causation might point in the opposite direction, there might be a confounding factor, or in fact there might be no correlation at all and the whole idea may have arisen because of all the biases that retrospection is heir to.

Grant Hutchison

Swift
2019-Jan-09, 10:32 PM
The thing is that the person who pays for most science is the tax payer. It is a bit unfair to pay for something and not understand what you are paying for. Plus if you want new scientist, engineers and doctors you need to get people excited about early in life.
Sorry for getting a little off topic, but I dispute your first sentence.

wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science)


Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies; often known as research councils). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.[citation needed]

According to OECD, more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government.[1]

I'm not disagreeing that it is worthwhile to educate the general public about science. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't encourage public funding of science. But I don't think the "I'm paying for it" argument really stands for all of science.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-09, 10:38 PM
Since there wasn't any science outreach in area when I was kid and I watched a lot of PBS and other educational programs I would be a solid TV influenced my interest in science. I learned about evolution from a late night 15 minute bit on PBS. (I was sleeping in the living room and woke up.) I did read a lot of science magazines as a teenager.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-09, 10:49 PM
Sorry for getting a little off topic, but I dispute your first sentence.

wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science)



I'm not disagreeing that it is worthwhile to educate the general public about science. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't encourage public funding of science. But I don't think the "I'm paying for it" argument really stands for all of science.
For stuff like Astronomy, Physics, and pure research most of the money comes from the public coffers. If the public knew what their money was being spent on it would make getting money in the future easier. Plus there is a lot people pretending to do science (like the atm area) and we need to counter these claims.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-10, 12:49 PM
Since there wasn't any science outreach in area when I was kid and I watched a lot of PBS and other educational programs I would be a solid TV influenced my interest in science. I learned about evolution from a late night 15 minute bit on PBS. (I was sleeping in the living room and woke up.) I did read a lot of science magazines as a teenager.See, that's the sort of anecdote I'm talking about. Isn't it just as likely that you watched a lot of pop sci TV because you were already interested in science? Or that you just watched a lot of TV, and now recall the pop sci TV most fondly? Or that you didn't actually watch as much pop sci TV as you now recall, but it seems more significant with hindsight?
People of my generation generally seem to have the causal arrow pointing in the opposite direction when we recall science books and magazines. It's "I read a lot about science when I was a kid, because I found it interesting," rather than "I'm interested in science now because I read a lot about it when I was a kid."

There's surprisingly little research on this topic, but there's an interesting review of what there is here (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwiIuv_MlOPfAhWODewKHYukBS4QFjAMegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent %2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9789401795043-c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1544638-p176995807&usg=AOvVaw3IMtqImesc5ywNWnziezIn) (300KB pdf). It seems that's what required to sustain a child's natural interest in science is a well-organized programme of science education, rather than exposure to random snippets of information.

Grant Hutchison

Swift
2019-Jan-10, 01:49 PM
For stuff like Astronomy, Physics, and pure research most of the money comes from the public coffers.
Does that make what I do "impure" research?

I don't demand that all scientific research has to have direct, practical applications. But I have noted for a long time a general derogatory feeling from those who do "pure science" to those who do "applied science" or engineering.


If the public knew what their money was being spent on it would make getting money in the future easier.
Along the lines of what Grant is saying: does it? I have heard that for a long time; I've probably even said such things myself. But is it true? It would nice to have some actual data to support that.

Swift
2019-Jan-10, 01:55 PM
People of my generation generally seem to have the causal arrow pointing in the opposite direction when we recall science books and magazines. It's "I read a lot about science when I was a kid, because I found it interesting," rather than "I'm interested in science now because I read a lot about it when I was a kid."

Heck, I'm hard pressed to say which one is true for myself. It seems to be more of a bootstrapping sort of situation.

One of the more memorable science books I had when I was a child was The Sense of Wonder by Rachel Carson. But I also watched a lot of TV coverage of the early space program. But maybe the biggest influence was humans: teachers I had, an uncle who was a biology professor, and an aunt who gifted me with a telescope and a microscope on two different birthdays.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-10, 02:22 PM
There wasn't much science on TV when I was a kid (and anyway, our TV came and went a bit, for various reasons). There wasn't a single science book in the house, though we had various encyclopaedias which I read indiscriminately. And our local library didn't have any science books I can recall in the kid's section - a couple of books about spaceflight and the night sky is all I can remember. And no role models - no-one in my immediate or extended family, or among my parents' friends, had anything to do with science.
So basically I walked into my first physics class, at age 12 in secondary school, and was blown away by the sheer power of mathematics to describe the world. That's how I got into science - through a structured educational programme.

I'm not saying that's ideal, or even typical, but it does make me impatient with the idea that we really need TV personalities delivering exciting science factoids regularly, or our children will grow up with no interest in science. On more than one occasion, when I've remarked that I can't bear to watch pop sci presenters like Tyson and Cox, I've been assured that they're performing some sort of vital societal service, and should be encouraged for that reason alone. I frankly doubt it.

Grant Hutchison

schlaugh
2019-Jan-10, 02:24 PM
When I was a child there was no pop sci TV, just Mr Wizard and which, as I remember, actually did real science and used the methodology of science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

DonM435
2019-Jan-10, 03:11 PM
As a kid I remember reading some popular space books by Willy Ley, but that's about it. My scientific interests mainly grew from dinosaurs and movies (The Invisible Man, Frankenstein ..).

Gillianren
2019-Jan-10, 04:12 PM
Sorry for getting a little off topic, but I dispute your first sentence.

Frankly, I dispute the second. No one goes out of their way once you're out of school to make sure you understand important geopolitical issues or economics or any of the other things influencing government. If you want to understand them, it's your job to understand them. Heck, without going into specifics, I'm sure most of us could name something our governments pay for that we do understand and don't want paid for. I pay my internet bill every month (well, contribute to the household expenses that pay for it) and don't truly understand how the internet works, not to the level that I could definitely explain it and not be wrong in at least one important particular. There's so much information that I believe it to be literally impossible to understand everything you're paying for--which, in my opinion, is an even more important reason not to get the explanations wrong if you can avoid it.

Hop_David
2019-Jan-10, 05:45 PM
For stuff like Astronomy, Physics, and pure research most of the money comes from the public coffers. If the public knew what their money was being spent on it would make getting money in the future easier. Plus there is a lot people pretending to do science (like the atm area) and we need to counter these claims.

To add another personal anecdote that demonstrates nothing...

My Mom had lots of science fiction lying around the house. I loved Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke the most. Also Ray Bradbury.

She also had art books and posters by M. C. Escher, Piet Mondrian, Spyros Horemis as well as nameless Native American artists who employed geometrical motifs.

These had a big influence on me. I think I may know more science and math than the average person but am not a professional engineer or scientist by any means. But I've heard some aerospace engineers were inspired by Heinlein et al.

So I believe the culture a child's immersed in can have a big influence. It'd be great if we could truly get pop culture to use more math and science.

But gesticulating wildly, making hip political statements and dropping bad math, science and history don't really further that goal, in my opinion. I've read more than one account of students inspired to study astrophysics by Tyson. And then giving up when they try to learn math. Astrophysics is a lot more than delivering bovine excrement in a smooth confident voice and moonwalking on the stage.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Jan-10, 08:00 PM
I am going to back off for a while. Mostly because I think most of this go around in circles.

blueshift
2019-Jan-13, 06:06 AM
He makes mistakes in basic physics as well.

For example his calling out the spin gravity in 2001 A Space Odyssey's rotating space station. According to Tyson the station spins three times too fast and so someone would weigh triple what they do on earth. Two things wrong with that.

1) Do the math for a 150 meter radius station making a revolution each 61 seconds and you will get 1/6 g. Which is what Clarke and Kubrick intended since the station was a stop on the way to the moon.

2) Also spin grav is ω2 r. So if the station spun three times too fast, you would weigh nine times too much. This is freshman physics.

There are other examples. This one is especially annoying to me since Clarke and Kubrick were sticklers for accuracy. And I'm a huge fan of Clarke.

Kubrick and Clarke did make several errors.

1. The had the wrong side of the Moon facing Earth in the opening scene. Mare Humorum and Grimaldi were rising and facing the audience, putting the far side of the Moon facing the Earth in conjunction from the audience.

2. A rotating space station was placed between a Full Moon and a Full Earth, an impossibility.

3. During the Moon Shuttle bus journey the Gibbous Earth was correctly positioned near the horizon but after the astronauts entered the pit to view the monolith, both position and phase of the Earth changed by nearly 90 degrees in an instant with a crescent Earth straight overhead of the shrieking monolith.

4. Violation of angular momentum and linear momentum in the confrontation between astronaut Poole and the space pod, with the space pod increasing in both when it should have been Poole spinning up and moving away more rapidly than the heavier pod. The pod's initial linear motion was straight at Poole with Discovery right behind him. Somehow the pod did a 180 and picked up spin while Poole just struggled with his space suit, doing a slow spin to his death.

5. Violation of Newton's 3rd Law when Bowman jettisoned from the space pod through the emergency air lock. The space pod should have moved away from opened door but didn't.

6. Back on the Moon they correctly showed astronauts moving slowly as they should in 1/6g but forgot to apply the same principle to the inside of the lunar conference room.

Don't get me wrong, 2001 was my favorite science fiction film and its slow pace provoked my youthful impatience enough to realize that I had to slow down and slowly break things down before I could learn how the world operates. The film forced my to play Sherlock Holmes and think about what I saw on the screen. I saw it 3 weeks after it opened in April 1968. The theater I saw it in was the Michael Todd Cinestage at Dearborn and Lake Streets, on the east side of a north south street. At 7PM the Sun was setting behind me with Moon setting between ( it was New Moon ) while on screen the opening scene had the Moon right in front of me with the Earth in conjunction, making me at an interface between reality and an almost mirror image of reality that violated mirror symmetry. You might as well start a film like one start a universe.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-13, 12:43 PM
2001 is riddled with errors. A lot are deliberate choices for artistic (the various planetary alignments) or practical (lack of lunar gravity) reasons. Some are simply slips - Space Station V rotates in different directions at different times during the docking sequence, Dave's spacesuit glove is detached from the sleeve when he goes to disconnect HAL. And some are real errors - Dave is visibly holding his breath during vacuum exposure, something Clarke would have picked up if he'd been present.
The revealing difference, of course, is that Clarke and Kubrick were making an entertainment. I think the parallel to today's science popularizers is clear - they're primarily in the entertainment business these days. And they make misleading errors for simplicity's sake, through inattention, or because they believe a false thing to be true.

Grant Hutchison

profloater
2019-Jan-13, 12:49 PM
But surely they got the rythm right, the opening sequence is wonderfully slow and to a waltz? Could a docking ever be done in 4:4? as in boating, where the rule is slow, docking is in slow waltz time, there should be a law about it. Kubrick's law.

schlaugh
2019-Jan-13, 03:28 PM
Pretty sure The Blue Danube was written in 3/4 time. You can hear it in the background chords (1,2,3,1,2,3...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strauss,_An_der_sch%C3%B6nen_blauen_Donau%2Eo gg?wprov=sfti1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prob

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-13, 03:38 PM
But surely they got the rythm right, the opening sequence is wonderfully slow and to a waltz? Could a docking ever be done in 4:4? as in boating, where the rule is slow, docking is in slow waltz time, there should be a law about it. Kubrick's law.In cinematographic terms, in narrative terms, they got that movie pitch-perfect, in my opinion. In the flight-to-the-moon sequence, there's a marvellous contrast between the grandeur of the depiction, and the mundane preoccupations of the characters.

I don't judge science-fiction films (or films in general) by their scientific accuracy - that way lies madness. I'm just pointing out the correlations between movie-as-entertainment (which we accept) and science-popularizer-as-entertainment (which we, at least hereabouts, denigrate). It seems science popularizers have fallen into an entertainment niche while still pretending to the rigours of scientific accuracy.

Grant Hutchison

profloater
2019-Jan-13, 04:05 PM
Pretty sure The Blue Danube was written in 3/4 time. You can hear it in the background chords (1,2,3,1,2,3...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strauss,_An_der_sch%C3%B6nen_blauen_Donau%2Eo gg?wprov=sfti1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Prob

indeed I think you are right

Gillianren
2019-Jan-13, 04:45 PM
Of course it's in 3/4. It's a waltz. All waltzes are 3/4.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-13, 05:44 PM
Triple time ("waltz time") is the important thing, I believe. ("One two three, one two three," under my breath.) Waltzes can be marked up in 3/8 or 3/2, too, to change the tempo.
(And then there's Tchaikovsky's "limping waltz" in 5/4.)

Grant Hutchison

profloater
2019-Jan-13, 05:58 PM
Oh dear i was being too subtle of course it’s the blue danube, Waltz, Strauss, I did not think that was news. But still the right choice for a great cinema masterpiece.

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-13, 06:07 PM
Oh dear i was being too subtle ...Well, I understood you to mean that waltz time was good, and 4/4 would have been less good. Wasn't that what you intended?

Grant Hutchison

profloater
2019-Jan-13, 06:13 PM
Well, I understood you to mean that waltz time was good, and 4/4 would have been less good. Wasn't that what you intended?

Grant Hutchison
Yes indeed it was a very long and slow beginning which was memorable in both picture and music IMO and at the time an inspiring “shapeof things to come “ fiction.

schlaugh
2019-Jan-13, 06:17 PM
Ah ha, a re-read makes it clearer for me. Could a docking be done in 4:4 time, such as Old Macdonald Had a Farm, for instance? :)

Arthur C. Clarke also dabbled in popsci TV. If you recall the old Arthur C. Clarkeís Mysterious World which looked at such items as The Yeti, Big Foot, UFOs and 10 or so other so-called mysteries. Clarke basically bookended each episode and tried, I think, to inject some skeptical thinking, but he still leant his name to a show that was firmly in the world of woo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

grant hutchison
2019-Jan-13, 06:38 PM
Arthur C. Clarke also dabbled in popsci TV. If you recall the old Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World which looked at such items as The Yeti, Big Foot, UFOs and 10 or so other so-called mysteries. Clarke basically bookended each episode and tried, I think, to inject some skeptical thinking, but he still leant his name to a show that was firmly in the world of woo. I have all three series on DVD and rewatch from time to time. I'd say his take was more Fortean than woo, which was very much Clarke's style of thinking in his factual essays, too. The programmes used eye-witness accounts of "strange phenomena", and balanced them with sceptical explanations. His treatment of firewalking was particularly good, culminating in Clarke delivering an Eliza Doolittle quote ("Not bloody likely!") at the prospect of his demonstrating his faith in physics by walking a fire trench himself.

Grant Hutchison

ngc3314
2019-Jan-20, 03:10 AM
1. The had the wrong side of the Moon facing Earth in the opening scene. Mare Humorum and Grimaldi were rising and facing the audience, putting the far side of the Moon facing the Earth in conjunction from the audience.

I mentioned that in a panel at a science-fiction con some years ago. For my trouble, no less than Phil the Bad Astronomer publicly called me a dork. One of my most treasured testimonials.

(It's even worse - to ordinary human vision that side of the Moon would be utterly invisible. But then the scene would probably be too puzzling).

blueshift
2019-Jan-30, 04:00 AM
2001 is riddled with errors. A lot are deliberate choices for artistic (the various planetary alignments) or practical (lack of lunar gravity) reasons. Some are simply slips - Space Station V rotates in different directions at different times during the docking sequence, Dave's spacesuit glove is detached from the sleeve when he goes to disconnect HAL. And some are real errors - Dave is visibly holding his breath during vacuum exposure, something Clarke would have picked up if he'd been present.
The revealing difference, of course, is that Clarke and Kubrick were making an entertainment. I think the parallel to today's science popularizers is clear - they're primarily in the entertainment business these days. And they make misleading errors for simplicity's sake, through inattention, or because they believe a false thing to be true.

Grant Hutchison

I always had the feeling that Kubrick envisioned films as being dream states, riddled with continuity errors. The audience cannot interact with what goes on in any film and must just be an observer, one who does not wake up until leaving the theater and, like someone waking from a dream, scratches his or her head and tries to piece the dream's errors together into some meaning.

Here is one person's view and he does make reference to rotational changes of several objects in the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXynF2RQJPs

publiusr
2019-Feb-05, 09:22 PM
Really, the Orion III spaceplane, the Discovery concept with radiators and the Hugo Drax station from Moonraker look like part of the same universe--Space 2100.

Moonraker shuttles (Buran types though) and Space Station V together say 2001. You just need a Sea Dragon upper stage falling away from the construction zone and it works.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Feb-10, 04:10 AM
Just did a quick search of what is going on with Tyson, Cosmos has been delayed until after the investigation but no word on the investigation.

slang
2019-Feb-11, 03:49 PM
Just did a quick search of what is going on with Tyson, Cosmos has been delayed until after the investigation but no word on the investigation.

On the previous page the moderator warned

Folks, let's try to keep the discussion around science ... how Tyson presents it. This forum is not a good place to discuss - and definitely not to litigate - the misconduct allegations against him.
That means don't go there. Not even to tell us that you did a quick search. Infraction issued.

The Backroad Astronomer
2019-Feb-11, 07:51 PM
Okay dokay, forgot, just thought some people were curious.

PetersCreek
2019-Feb-11, 07:56 PM
Okay dokay, forgot, just thought some people were curious.

You also shouldn't be commenting on moderator remarks within the thread unless asked to do so.

blueshift
2019-Feb-19, 02:22 AM
See, that's the sort of anecdote I'm talking about. Isn't it just as likely that you watched a lot of pop sci TV because you were already interested in science? Or that you just watched a lot of TV, and now recall the pop sci TV most fondly? Or that you didn't actually watch as much pop sci TV as you now recall, but it seems more significant with hindsight?
People of my generation generally seem to have the causal arrow pointing in the opposite direction when we recall science books and magazines. It's "I read a lot about science when I was a kid, because I found it interesting," rather than "I'm interested in science now because I read a lot about it when I was a kid."

There's surprisingly little research on this topic, but there's an interesting review of what there is here (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwiIuv_MlOPfAhWODewKHYukBS4QFjAMegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent %2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9789401795043-c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1544638-p176995807&usg=AOvVaw3IMtqImesc5ywNWnziezIn) (300KB pdf). It seems that's what required to sustain a child's natural interest in science is a well-organized programme of science education, rather than exposure to random snippets of information.

Grant Hutchison

The problem with that pdf file is that it refers to motivation. Is motivation what Tyson is really after? Or, is it funding for science projects that pop scientists are after? Aren't there a lot of investors and voters in their audiences?

Even when I attend lectures at Fermilab or Argonne, I am quite aware that the lectures are watered down. It is a night out on the town for a lot in the science community. But for those who are just visitors or are looking for more details disappointment will be there. Physics Slam is very popular. The older members in our astronomy club like to attend these lectures while the younger ones are less interested in sitting on their butts and would rather be out observing, even in 25 below zero weather.