• Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Universe While Eating Spicy Wings | Hot Ones
    74 replies, posted
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da8-QfGemgo[/media] I didn't see this getting posted
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52215147]I don't care what anyone says, I fucking love this guy.[/QUOTE] I just wish he wasn't so euphoric
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52215147]I don't care what anyone says, I fucking love this guy.[/QUOTE] At least he's actually a scientist, unlike Bill Nye.
Neil deGrasse Tyson mocks children while high.
[QUOTE=DETrooper;52215243]At least he's actually a scientist, unlike Bill Nye.[/QUOTE] So you're telling me Nye is the Supa Hot Fire of the science field?
I used to think he was hot shit and loved most of his stuff, but nowadays I cringe whenever I see him cause he comes across as a pretentious douchebag. Also, I now dislike him even more because he has no table manners and slaps his lips together like a disgusting human being. Ain't nobody wanna hear that shit when they're eating. [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] He handled the spice like a boss. I wanted him to cough up super hard during that dumb 2nd to last sauce he took where he went on a massive self-jerk rant about how piquant and floral it was.
[QUOTE=DETrooper;52215243]At least he's actually a scientist, unlike Bill Nye.[/QUOTE] A guy with mediocre contributions to science who spends all his time doing popsci isn't much better credentials-wise t b h
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52215147]I don't care what anyone says, I fucking love this guy.[/QUOTE] He's a bit of a jerk but I have a lot of respect for anyone who brings science to wider audiences, I get the hate for his attitude but I don't dislike him.
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52215387]He's a bit of a jerk but I have a lot of respect for anyone who brings science to wider audiences, I get the hate for his attitude but I don't dislike him.[/QUOTE] Yep totally agree. People have been pretty braindead when It comes to science and consider it boring. He might be a dick but he makes science much more accessible for people and he knows how to make it sound interesting to watch and listen to.
There are more stars in our galaxy, then there are atoms in the universe.
The thing is iirc he wasn't a dick in the early days, I think his fame has gone to his head
neil degrasse tyson isnt a dick lol yall just got sticks up your asses
When's Gordon Ramsey going to be on the show?
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52215387]He's a bit of a jerk but I have a lot of respect for anyone who brings science to wider audiences, I get the hate for his attitude but I don't dislike him.[/QUOTE] the whole idea of "popularising science" is incredibly misplaced when there's an ongoing replication crisis and science as a whole (institutions, individual scientists, etc) are becoming less reliable and the information they give out less accurate. it would be fine (if a bit shallow) were this not the case, but when there's a massive problem you're refusing to admit in public it comes over as being very dishonest to people. people will naturally draw towards science if it's rigorous, accurate, and continues to intrigue people. This hasn't been exactly the case ever since newspaper headlines spat out "coffee causes/prevents cancer" and scientists have been contradicting themselves for years. when idiots like bill nye and neil go onto TV to revive long-dead shows (Cosmos and Bill Nyes one), they are immeasurably inferior to the older one. their attitude as well is entirely different to the old. it's much less about informing the public about scientific topics and actual issues within science itself, and more browbeating them over the head with "science is right, you are wrong" and then talking about topics of no substance is not going to make science more popular with the public.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52215535]neil degrasse tyson isnt a dick lol yall just got sticks up your asses[/QUOTE] Only one with a stick up his ass is the guy who became infamous for being a party pooper about movies on twitter. [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52215586]the whole idea of "popularising science" is incredibly misplaced when there's an ongoing replication crisis and science as a whole (institutions, individual scientists, etc) are becoming less reliable and the information they give out less accurate. it would be fine (if a bit shallow) were this not the case, but when there's a massive problem you're refusing to admit in public it comes over as being very dishonest to people. people will naturally draw towards science if it's rigorous, accurate, and continues to intrigue people. This hasn't been exactly the case ever since newspaper headlines spat out "coffee causes/prevents cancer" and scientists have been contradicting themselves for years. when idiots like bill nye and neil go onto TV to revive long-dead shows (Cosmos and Bill Nyes one), they are immeasurably inferior to the older one. their attitude as well is entirely different to the old. it's much less about informing the public about scientific topics and actual issues within science itself, and more browbeating them over the head with "science is right, you are wrong" and then talking about topics of no substance is not going to make science more popular with the public.[/QUOTE] Yeah lmao if people were so intrinsically interested in Science we wouldn't be in half the shit we're in right now. What kind of sheltered world do you fucking live in ?
Every time someone tries to defend him and say he ain't a pretentious douchebag, I just chuckle to myself thinking about his dumbass leap year tweet. Man tries so hard to sound smart he comes up with the dumbest shit.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52215636]Yeah lmao if people were so intrinsically interested in Science we wouldn't be in half the shit we're in right now. What kind of sheltered world do you fucking live in ?[/QUOTE] the overwhelming attitude i get from the latest generation of science "popularises" like Neil and Bill is that they insult peoples intelligence, peddle their politics, and do very little to either popularise science nor address public concerns about major issues within science right now.
Bill Nye and NDT dont popularise science. They popularise pop science. Its the same garbage you'd see on Facebook groups that people would share while pretending to be nerdy.
Two dipshits decided to get pretentious and political. This does not mean the entirety of science as a concept became unreliable. Irrational people have questioned science for centuries. It has [I]nothing[/I] to do with modern politics or what Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson do for a living.
it all went down with the passing of carl sagan
excuse me this is not a place for science this is a place for hot wings and even hotter questions
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52215586]the whole idea of "popularising science" is incredibly misplaced when there's an ongoing replication crisis and science as a whole (institutions, individual scientists, etc) are becoming less reliable and the information they give out less accurate. it would be fine (if a bit shallow) were this not the case, but when there's a massive problem you're refusing to admit in public it comes over as being very dishonest to people. people will naturally draw towards science if it's rigorous, accurate, and continues to intrigue people. This hasn't been exactly the case ever since newspaper headlines spat out "coffee causes/prevents cancer" and scientists have been contradicting themselves for years. when idiots like bill nye and neil go onto TV to revive long-dead shows (Cosmos and Bill Nyes one), they are immeasurably inferior to the older one. their attitude as well is entirely different to the old. it's much less about informing the public about scientific topics and actual issues within science itself, and more browbeating them over the head with "science is right, you are wrong" and then talking about topics of no substance is not going to make science more popular with the public.[/QUOTE] It sounds like your issue is with how the media reports on science, rather than science itself as I imagine research institutions are just getting more and more accurate, with more studies and a wider range of research methodologies. The whole point of science as a study field is to find contradictions into what other scientists say, so they can research it further and find out which outcome is the truth. And the new Cosmos was really well done.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52215679]Two dipshits decided to get pretentious and political. This does not mean the entirety of science as a concept became unreliable.[/quote] science at the moment is in a major problem due to things like the replication crisis. we have more and more papers churned out every year, and yet our ability to scrutinise them and verify their findings is getting worse. having public idiots come out to batter people over the head and to shout at them "you're ignorant, science has the answer" when science itself is often incapable of answering those questions is not going to help things. they're little better (if not worse) than pundits on fox news and senators who claim that snowing in florida refutes global warming [quote]Irrational people have questioned science for centuries. It has [I]nothing[/I] to do with modern politics or what Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson do for a living.[/QUOTE] uh loads of philosophers of science have questioned science for a long time. doing so isn't irrational (following science blindly is irrational however) [QUOTE=icemaz;52215703]It sounds like your issue is with how the media reports on science, rather than science itself as I imagine research institutions are just getting more and more accurate, with more studies and a wider range of research methodologies. The whole point of science as a study field is to find contradictions into what other scientists say, so they can research it further and find out which outcome is the truth.[/QUOTE] it's not to do with the media - it's intrinsic to science /itself/ we have a decreasing ability to actually replicate the findings of papers, and yet the results of these papers are being treated as fact regardless [b]most published research findings are false[/b] [url]http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124[/url] this was 12 years ago, it's gotten worse since
I've had a dislike for Tyson ever since he came to my hometown to tell us all that Pluto was no longer a planet. My middle school science teacher got to meet him when he was in town, and she said he wasn't the friendliest guy. [video]https://youtu.be/nxi9FvFJjbQ?t=1311[/video] 21:50 and 41:40 in this video.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52215636]Only one with a stick up his ass is the guy who became infamous for being a party pooper about movies on twitter.[/QUOTE] "in other news a man talks about what he likes on his social media page, more at 11" *furrows brow*
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52215841]"in other news a Man talks about what he likes on a social media page while pretending that pointing out scientifically impossible things in Star wars somehow makes him the end all be all. " *furrows brow*[/QUOTE] ftfy
[QUOTE=kilerabv;52215677]Bill Nye and NDT dont popularise science. They popularise pop science. Its the same garbage you'd see on Facebook groups that people would share while pretending to be nerdy.[/QUOTE] yeah i hate it when people selectively share their favorite or generally cool aspects of science. why doesnt he just post equations of chemical bonds and feynman diagrams all day? [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=kilerabv;52215854]ftfy[/QUOTE] thanks for making it look more petty and overreaching! i tried to emulate but it's so hard to capture the real deal
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52215147]I don't care what anyone says, I fucking love this guy.[/QUOTE] As long as he stays within his field, yes.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52215855]yeah i hate it when people selectively share their favorite or generally cool aspects of science. why doesnt he just post equations of chemical bonds and feynman diagrams all day? [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] thanks for making it look more petty and overreaching! i tried to emulate but it's so hard to capture the real deal[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone actually thinks popular science is inherently bad. Just that often it can be dangerously oversimplified and misleading, and that's where the bad reputation comes from.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52215841]"in other news a man talks about what he likes on his social media page, more at 11" *furrows brow*[/QUOTE] They're free to talk about it and I'm free to judge them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.