I can't stand NGT. Hang me for that if you like, but there it is. I can't watch him for more than about 5 minutes before wanting to hurl something at the screen with great force, but even I think this article goes too far.
It has some good points that his version of history is laughably simple and his depiction of Bruno was just plain wrong, and that he has a tendency to state the blindingly obvious as though it was a revelation. And one of NGT's main problems that isn't mentioned here is that he loudly proclaims the value of uncertainty and the scientific method, whilst simultaneously sounds incredibly, overwhelmingly, mind-wrenchingly pompous and certain. Someday I may get angry/bored enough to explain this in more detail but not today.
But explaining what things are doesn't diminish the wonder of what they are, and it certainly doesn't make the universe boring. Far from it. While I despise the style of his presentation, trying to explain how wonderful the universe is if you strip it down to the bare facts is a laudable goal. It's the execution that's the failure point, not the method.
But pretty much everyone loves him, so I must be wrong. Oh well.
[Since then I've come to the conclusion that this article does have a point - at least sometimes NGT does become a totally unnecessary pedant, making corrections where absolutely none are needed.]
Neil deGrasse Tyson is, supposedly, an educator and a populariser of science; it’s his job to excite people about the mysteries of the universe, communicate information, and correct popular misconceptions. This is a noble, arduous, and thankless job, which might be why he doesn’t do it. What he actually does is make the universe boring, tell people things that they already know, and dispel misconceptions that nobody actually holds.
https://samkriss.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-pedantry-in-space
Rhys Taylor I won't hang you. You just have a different, more educated view than I do of astronomy. I understand Neil. There are times, while I try really hard, I don't understand you or Ciro Villa, because the two of you are looking at things from a different perspective than I would. Yet, most of the time, the two of you are very easily understood.
ReplyDeleteI have this sneaking feeling I, too, would dislike him, if I had ever seen anything with him in it. It's a funny way to make a living, popularising something you don't fully understand.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you with NGT, and would go as far as calling him an impostor sometimes. With the responsibility he has as a wide-reaching public science figure, some of his affirmations are nothing short of a betrayal to what he is supposed to stand for.
ReplyDelete(Note that this has nothing to do with his worth as a scientist, I actually have no idea about what research he made of papers he published, and maybe he does a great job there.)
But then again, he does tickle a few of my pet peeves, so I may be a bit unfair. Maybe.
And yeah, how does explaining (well) how the world works makes it a boring place? A clear case of Don't shoot the message! there.
But I'm even ambivalent toward Sagan.
For starters, I found Contact boring and naïve at best. (I only watched the film, but it's the plot itself I have problems with, so I doubt the book is better in that regard.)
And of course, it contains this marvellous pearl of wisdom: it's Christians like you that made me an Atheist
Leaving aside my pet peeves of Christianophobia, and showing Atheists as intolerant jerks. Let's forget how it hints at a neatly divided world between Christians and Atheist, forbidden to Muslims, Shintoists, Zoroastrianists, or Agnostics.
No, the real problem with that is: It's X like you that made me a Y
Any sufficiently large group will have at least a few bad apples. With that statement, you can literally justify anything. (Also, you can switch X and Y.)
This is so wrong, I have a hard time understanding how it wasn't cut at some point (preferably first draft).
Linked to how Contact IMHO fails, I more generally find him impracticably naïve on ETI matters - though let's not keep his early METI lunacy against him (unless a predatory civ does get the laser, but I'm not holding my breath), he did get better later AFAICT.
(Again, leaving aside his valuable 'non-public' work - this is about him as a public figure).
To be fair, lots of people seem to be interested in science thanks to him, so he's probably still a net positive (unless his SETI/METI work does end up dooming us all, but hey, c'est la vie).
But still man, what were you thinking?
No seriously people, you're scary with those pitchforks...
About 3-years ago, I spent an evening with him at a Star Party our club in Santa Fe, NM (USA) did for him and his film crew, while they were putting "Cosmos" together.
ReplyDeleteHe's quite personable. And very knowledgeable. But...like most all "celebrities," has a big ego.
"Like moths to a flame."
NGT's tweet that if sex hurt it would have become extinct was cringeworthy, but it only got worse when he dug in and dismissed the PhD biologist who schooled him as "a woman with a blog". I lost all respect for him then.
ReplyDeleteElie Thorne While I do have a soft spot for Contact (at least the film - never read the book), I'm pretty much apathetic towards Sagan in general. I watched some of the original Cosmos but I never found to be anything particularly extraordinary. The Pale Blue Dot speech is very nice, but after having heard so much of how apparently breathtakingly charismatic Sagan was supposed to be, I was expecting something more. I've nothing against Sagan, I just wouldn't have put him down as one of the greats.
ReplyDelete"And of course, it contains this marvellous pearl of wisdom: it's Christians like you that made me an Atheist
Leaving aside my pet peeves of Christianophobia, and showing Atheists as intolerant jerks."
Ouch, it's basically saying that discrimination is OK after all. And the sentiment of "I'm an atheist, therefore better than those intolerant Christians" is just agonizingly ironic. NGT promotes a similarly divisive attitude, in my views. "Only a theory - one of the dumbest things you could possibly say." Yeah, apart from string theory not being a theory at all, and the definition of theory not normally being taught in schools. But hey, let's make ourselves all feel super-smart by knowing some word definitions that other people don't, then wilfully mistake their ignorance for stupidity. Great job !
[slow clap]
NGT does not actively publish papers. He has five first-author papers (same as me, actually) since 1985 (I started in 2012, so make of that what you will), plus a handful of co-authorships. I've no idea at all if they're any good, but he's infinitely more well-known as a populariser than a researcher.
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#research
"To be fair, lots of people seem to be interested in science thanks to him"
Therein lies my dilemma. If Mark Ruhland et al. benefit from someone I don't like, who am I to tell them they should not ?
I guess my take-home message would be that he's great at explaining facts (if not at making them sound interesting), but as a promoter of scientific values he's got all the subtle sophistication of a Bonnie Tyler music video. But nowhere near as funny.
Rajini Rao Ouch. Someone should tell him about the mating habits of spiders, the praying mantis, and that cephalopod with a detachable penis. Or the bedbug. If evolution favoured "survival of the nicest" the world would be a happier place.
ReplyDeleteBut he's an astronomer. He should damn well know better than to dismiss the opinion of a biologist in her own field, about which he has no formal training. And "woman with a blog" is just a plain horrible thing to say, on many levels.