Nerds love affair with Astrophysicist?

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
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.


I couldn't watch it either, BUT.......I found the entire 2 seasons in mp3 format and have listened to it while driving. Much better experience without the cheesy cartoons. It's like they made it for 3rd graders! Oh wait, most political language/ads/debates in the United States are at a 3rd grade level, so it makes sense.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
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 is entertaining and valuable. But, it does remind me of a conversation I had with a physics professor some years back. He was lamenting that he was told to create a course that was sort of an introduction to physics for people who really aren't getting into any of the sciences. He was told it would have to be basically bereft of math, particularly calculus.

I asked him, "What's physics without calculus?"

"A lot of hand waving," he replied.

Basically, it's good to have someone be able to make things accessible to the lay people out there. However, there are no short cuts to understanding the material. If one cannot handle advanced calculus, one will not handle physics.

 

[Papa Bear]

BITOG already has it's own "Astro14" .... no need for another one.

 

[Astro14]

And I've done a lot of hand-waving over the years...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Garak
He is entertaining and valuable. But, it does remind me of a conversation I had with a physics professor some years back. He was lamenting that he was told to create a course that was sort of an introduction to physics for people who really aren't getting into any of the sciences. He was told it would have to be basically bereft of math, particularly calculus.

I asked him, "What's physics without calculus?"

"A lot of hand waving," he replied.

Basically, it's good to have someone be able to make things accessible to the lay people out there. However, there are no short cuts to understanding the material. If one cannot handle advanced calculus, one will not handle physics.

Very good point. It matters what level of understanding you're talking about, though.

Totally true that you can barely brush the snow off the tip of the iceberg in physics if you don't know calculus. The physics professor you mentioned was right to imply that. But let's not forget what we're talking about: the professor's perspective on physics goes far deeper than most people could possibly imagine. Even the light dusting that could be served up without calculus is far beyond what most people understand, and it's enough to improve lives, expand minds, and ignite some curiosity.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Well, the short explanation is that he's so dreamy!!!

But, he doesn't say "billions" or "star stuff" the right way...

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: jcwit
The religion of science!


"Science doesn't care what you believe"

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

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.



But the responsible thing to do to answer your hypothetical question is say, "yes, BUT.... " and do some explaining. The idea that its somehow weak or risky to say "we don't 100% know this..." comes more from politics than it does from science or engineering. A politician is "a waffler" if he doesn't have a pat answer ready, and it doesn't matter if the answer is stupid. That's not how the real world works, though.


Science ISN'T science unless you leave the nuance in. I think its more dangerous when people *think* they're making decisions and arguments based on nuance-free science than if they only understand some of the nuance and recognize the limits of what they understand. I can think of nothing more dangerous than a generation that thinks "we know ALL ABOUT science!" because they watched Neil Tyson and Bill Nye on TV as kids.

Balancing that is the possibility of a generation that will perhaps be more likely to go LEARN real science instead of whatever college major promises the highest average income because they watched Nye and Tyson and got genuinely interested in science.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
But the responsible thing to do to answer your hypothetical question is say, "yes, BUT.... " and do some explaining. The idea that its somehow weak or risky to say "we don't 100% know this..." comes more from politics than it does from science or engineering. A politician is "a waffler" if he doesn't have a pat answer ready, and it doesn't matter if the answer is stupid. That's not how the real world works, though.


Science ISN'T science unless you leave the nuance in. I think its more dangerous when people *think* they're making decisions and arguments based on nuance-free science than if they only understand some of the nuance and recognize the limits of what they understand. I can think of nothing more dangerous than a generation that thinks "we know ALL ABOUT science!" because they watched Neil Tyson and Bill Nye on TV as kids.

Balancing that is the possibility of a generation that will perhaps be more likely to go LEARN real science instead of whatever college major promises the highest average income because they watched Nye and Tyson and got genuinely interested in science.




I completely agree with you philosophically. I can't even express how crushingly frustrated I am that so much of our culture (and most cultures if we're honest) militates AGAINST curiosity and good epistemology.

As a practical matter, the fact remains that if you want to persuade people, you first have to meet them where they are. And if where they are is a mire of bad epistemology, that means you're going to have to bite some bullets if you hope to get them interested in science.

We do this with children all the time. No one would take seriously the idea of explaining science in un-simplistic terms to a 5 year-old. It's the same with adults who are so ignorant or blinded by politics that they don't think sea level rise is a thing.

Besides, some things really are just false, as far as we know. In those instances, that needs to be pointed out straightforwardly. Don't you agree?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
And I've done a lot of hand-waving over the years...

Loads of fun, huh? The local universities had their share of hand waving, as it were, aside from that "physics for arts students" business. The U of S, at least at one time, did not require calculus as a pre-requisite or co-requisite for first year physics. First year physics there was a year long course, and I can't see it being fun without at least a rather high degree of proficiency in algebra. Nonetheless, anyone can be shown how to do a dot product or a cross product. Learning them from first principles is another thing altogether, and far more valuable. And, not really understanding the mathematical relationship between displacement, velocity, acceleration, and jerk limits the understanding of those concepts. The course material tried to avoid the calculus topics altogether, but you can imagine how much of a fuzzy picture that would paint - driving without headlights. And then, this is the class that aspiring physicists would be starting with. Looking at the material, someone with good algebra and a good work ethic could get through it. Someone with a strong understanding of differential calculus would find it a walk in the park.

Then the U of R puts the engineers in a lower level of first year physics class than what a physics major would take (must resist urge to be sarcastic). They might understand the math, but they don't get the background in the lab equipment, and they're doomed when they hit second year and wind up with a lab instructor that hates engineers.

d00df00d: You're quite right, there are plenty of things to intrigue people without overwhelming them. However, some watch a lot of the popular scientific programs and think they know something, when it winds up being a screenwriter's or journalist's interpretation of a physicist's dumbed-down anecdote.

 

[javacontour]

Freshman year in college, I recall learning more calculus in physics class than in the calculus class I was taking.

I was a bit behind on the math when I entered the university, but took the courses required of a EE to show I could do the work. After my freshman year, I was admitted to the school of engineering, having done better than some of the 'so-called' more qualified candidates.

Almost got an A in Differential Equations my sophomore year. I needed a 5% of the final to keep my B and a 105% on my final to get an A. I was happy as I had to struggle the first year to be in such a place in Calc an Physics.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
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 is entertaining and valuable. But, it does remind me of a conversation I had with a physics professor some years back. He was lamenting that he was told to create a course that was sort of an introduction to physics for people who really aren't getting into any of the sciences. He was told it would have to be basically bereft of math, particularly calculus.

I asked him, "What's physics without calculus?"

"A lot of hand waving," he replied.

Basically, it's good to have someone be able to make things accessible to the lay people out there. However, there are no short cuts to understanding the material. If one cannot handle advanced calculus, one will not handle physics.

 

[Nate1979]

Use it or lose it. I've forgotten more calculus, physics, chemistry, etc than I care to think about.

 

[97tbird]

I just bought the collector's edition (8 DVDs - remastered) of Cosmos series, and despite its age I find it highly informative and entertaining.
(This edition has some "updates" where new discoveries were made since the original episodes aired to correct/add to some things that were explained in certain original episodes, and they're also narrated by Sagan himself...)

Here's the whole bunch :

NDGT, Sagan, Feynman, Bill Nye.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I have a copy of the original Cosmos book from the 70s my parents bought me when I was a kid. Carl Sagan is just flat out AWESOME!! He can never be replaced

 

[97tbird]

I need to buy and read Pale Blue Dot...
(according to Wiki, some images supplied by NASA for the 1st edition run were omitted from later editions...)

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Freshman year in college, I recall learning more calculus in physics class than in the calculus class I was taking.

The U of S first year physics material from years ago deliberately avoided the calculus as far as they could, whereas the U of R advanced first year physics stuff didn't, and for those who would have problems, I'm sure the professors could help. After all, physicists tend to be very competent mathematicians, provided they're using their trig functions correctly to give them the correct sign and direction in a coordinate system, rather than tweaking signs and angles afterwards.

That's just a huge peeve of mine.

I got very lucky in my second year Calculus II class in university. Everyone hated the prof and she had a terrible reputation and was considered too tough. I found her approach fantastic, and got a final mark of 100% in the class. The first year class had a professor with a much better reputation, but I wound up three points lower, with much more elementary material.