Nerds love affair with Astrophysicist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
751
Location
usa
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a lot of things and people that others have an infatuation with that I don't understand.
I don't spend one second trying to figure out why. Not my business.
 
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.

Yet your a member on a website that obsesses about motor oil, something 90% of the population never thinks about except "oh, its been 3 months/3000 miles, need to get my oil changed", never thinking about brand, viscosity or what type of filter is used.
 
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.


I think there is a political connection between NDT and certain "types". As NDT is rather vocal about his views.
 
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.

He's on the cutting edge of science, he's better than almost anyone at explaining science to laypeople, he's energetic and funny, he takes on issues that matter to fans of science, he cranks out one-liners like a fortune cookie factory, and he does everything with verve and enthusiasm.
 
He has taken on the anti-science crowd, I guess that will make him unpopular with many. Sagan is/was great, this guy is building on what he started. He's having to deal with a 15-second attention span audience from what I see.
 
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.


He's well-spoken, articulate, engaging... so he's good in front of a camera. He has enough real physics knowledge to not say too many blatantly dumb things. Sure, he's not hardcore like your Feynman or Wheeler... or even the average tenured physics professor at a research university (he didn't hack it at UT). But overall guys like him can be good for the sciences. My only beef with him is that he's in danger of being seen as a sock-puppet for the "quick conclusion" crowd that thinks things like anthropogenic climate change are completely settled and there should be no more discussion. In true science, *few* things are ever completely settled and never re-examined. Take the discovery of oxygen on the comet by the Rosetta probe. Every solar system origin model out there says molecular O2 should't be possible on something that ancient, but there it is, not only present but actually the 4th most common substance in the comet's corona. So guys like Tyson and Sagan should stay skeptical of everything, and neither one of them has.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
So guys like Tyson and Sagan should stay skeptical of everything, and neither one of them has.

Of course they have.

If they ever don't seem appropriately skeptical, it's because they are reacting to flat-out denialism.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.


He's well-spoken, articulate, engaging... so he's good in front of a camera. He has enough real physics knowledge to not say too many blatantly dumb things. Sure, he's not hardcore like your Feynman or Wheeler... or even the average tenured physics professor at a research university (he didn't hack it at UT). But overall guys like him can be good for the sciences. My only beef with him is that he's in danger of being seen as a sock-puppet for the "quick conclusion" crowd that thinks things like anthropogenic climate change are completely settled and there should be no more discussion. In true science, *few* things are ever completely settled and never re-examined. Take the discovery of oxygen on the comet by the Rosetta probe. Every solar system origin model out there says molecular O2 should't be possible on something that ancient, but there it is, not only present but actually the 4th most common substance in the comet's corona. So guys like Tyson and Sagan should stay skeptical of everything, and neither one of them has.




Mike Tyson? :)
 
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.


He can talk science to a common layman and make it understandable and interesting. A rare gift.
 
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.

Yet your a member on a website that obsesses about motor oil, something 90% of the population never thinks about except "oh, its been 3 months/3000 miles, need to get my oil changed", never thinking about brand, viscosity or what type of filter is used.


crackmeup2.gif


Originally Posted By: Rust_Belt_Pete
Originally Posted By: 285south
I don't get the total infatuation that these "nerds" have with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is trying desperately to be a Carl Sagan.


He can talk science to a common layman and make it understandable and interesting. A rare gift.


Agreed, he also conveys the passion about science, and makes other people interested in science.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
So guys like Tyson and Sagan should stay skeptical of everything, and neither one of them has.

Of course they have.

If they ever don't seem appropriately skeptical, it's because they are reacting to flat-out denialism.


That's the point. Science doesn't 'react' to pop culture. Scientists don't submerge honest inquiry in response to which opinion happens to be in the majority or minority, because mass opinion doesn't alter reality one [censored] bit.
 
No one will ever be as cool as Carl Sagan. I used to love watching Cosmos when I was a kid. I thought he was the most awesome guy ever!
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I used to love watching Cosmos when I was a kid.


If you wish to watch Cosmos from the beginning, you must first invent the universe! :^)

Did you see the Cosmos reboot a couple of years ago with Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
So guys like Tyson and Sagan should stay skeptical of everything, and neither one of them has.

Of course they have.

If they ever don't seem appropriately skeptical, it's because they are reacting to flat-out denialism.


That's the point. Science doesn't 'react' to pop culture. Scientists don't submerge honest inquiry in response to which opinion happens to be in the majority or minority, because mass opinion doesn't alter reality one [censored] bit.

True. But what's relevant here is not Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan as scientists per se; it's their public personas. In the latter role, it's not only a privilege to be less than 100% careful; it's almost a duty, because the vast majority of people in the audience don't know what nuance even is.

On the original point, what I'm saying is that their "insufficient skepticism" is an illusion generated by the context. For example, someone says "we don't actually know if the earth is getting warmer." That's flat-out false, so Tyson will call it false. In no way does that mean he thinks there's 100% certainty about the severity, causes, solutions, etc. But because he doesn't preface or follow up with a million caveats to to that effect (and why should he have to?), the stark nature of his reply still makes him look like a blind follower of the something something man-made climate change whatever.
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I used to love watching Cosmos when I was a kid.


If you wish to watch Cosmos from the beginning, you must first invent the universe! :^)

Did you see the Cosmos reboot a couple of years ago with Neil DeGrasse Tyson?


Yeah i tried to watch it but just couldn't get into it. Seemed like a really bad cheesy remake/imitation. The original Cosmos can never be replaced imo. Couldn't capture the magic of the original.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top