Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Universe While Eating Spicy Wings | Hot Ones
74 replies, posted
Never had a problem with the guy. He's smart and well spoken, if maybe a bit akward and obtuse. He's an excellent educator and is good at making science digestible for a general audience. Some dumb tweets of his, and anecdotes about how "he was kind of a dick this one time" aren't going to change that for me.
People have a really strange perception of celebrities like they should be perfect specimens. NDT is amazing guy, he got a lot of people interested in learning about the universe and he makes science entertaining.
[QUOTE=omarfr;52224621]People have a really strange perception of celebrities like they should be perfect specimens. NDT is amazing guy, he got a lot of people interested in learning about the universe and he makes science entertaining.[/QUOTE]
People are always all or nothing on celebrities, especially internet ones. I don't know why. They love them until they fuck up once and then I WILL NEVER WATCH YOU AGAIN OR FORGIVE YOU FOR thIS
People are complicated. Nobody's perfect. Sometimes a creator you like will do something you don't like. That doesn't mean you have to hate them.
Extra content
[media]https://youtu.be/MVVUmoT-bKg[/media]
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52224643]People are always all or nothing on celebrities, especially internet ones. I don't know why. They love them until they fuck up once and then I WILL NEVER WATCH YOU AGAIN OR FORGIVE YOU FOR thIS
People are complicated. Nobody's perfect. Sometimes a creator you like will do something you don't like. That doesn't mean you have to hate them.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think the people who dislike him never liked him in the first place. They had their political views or whatever, and as soon as he started interfearing with that - perhaps even by proving them wrong or whatever - they started disliking him. He's obviously not a political genius who knows how to turn the
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52225349]Actually, I think the people who dislike him never liked him in the first place. They had their political views or whatever, and as soon as he started interfearing with that - perhaps even by proving them wrong or whatever - they started disliking him. He's obviously not a political genius who knows how to turn the[/QUOTE]
turn what
I like NDT. We were friends on facebook before his popularity exploded and he had to become a public page in order to better communicate with his fans.
Also he looks like my dad
[QUOTE=LNKFAN;52215293]So you're telling me Nye is the Supa Hot Fire of the science field?[/QUOTE]
Bill doesn't have any science credentials, his show made him a scientist, not his history.
[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]
If we judged most people by their shit posts on FP I bet I would have the same opinion of everyone on here if I knew them IRL.
[editline]14th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheJamesGravy;52226267]Bill doesn't have any science credentials, his show made him a scientist, not his history.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know their was a specific criteria someone had to meet to be a scientist, history generally agrees its anyone who contributes to science is a scientist. How many people became scientists and made contributions because they watched Bill Nye I wonder?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52216549]I don't get the hate for Tyson at all? He's a cool guy who does cool shit, I like his character and I think he does a really good job blending science and entertainment. What happened that made ppl seem so meh toward him? He is no Carl Sagan but I likeand respect him the same way I do a lot of great comedians.[/QUOTE]
I don't like how he tends to say some really dumb shit whenever he's talking about anything outside his field, while still acting wise and knowledgeable.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;52230346]I don't like how he tends to say some really dumb shit whenever he's talking about anything outside his field, while still acting wise and knowledgeable.[/QUOTE]As always, this comic constantly comes to mind
[t]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100129.gif[/t]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52215710]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
uh loads of philosophers of science have questioned science for a long time. doing so isn't irrational (following science blindly is irrational however)
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[/QUOTE]
Do you not see any contradiction with using a single scientific research paper to discount the entirety of scientific research? If the scientific method is flawed then using the scientific method to determine that is ridiculous, if most studies are coming to their conclusions based on bias inherent to science then why should we trust that this study is any different?
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52230432]Do you not see any contradiction with using a single scientific research paper to discount the entirety of scientific research? If the scientific method is flawed then using the scientific method to determine that is ridiculous, if most studies are coming to their conclusions based on bias inherent to science then why should we trust that this study is any different?[/QUOTE]
the first is that I said "most", not "all"
second I said literally nothing about the actual validity of the scientific method (it's good, it's just that people aren't adhering to it)
third this is a serious problem and I don't think pretending it isn't there by going "the specific study you linked could be biased too" isn't going to help. this is something I've personally seen and a lot of other scientists have seen and raised the issue about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.