Neil deGrasse Tyson

grini

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
A friend of mine sent me today on FB link to this video
_http://youtu.be/8vfOpZD4Sm8
with a message that I might get interested in a few topics that this astrophysicist covered in his talk. That friend is a science fiction fan, quite religious and he don't believe in UFOs.

About Neil deGrasse Tyson from Wikipedia

Neil deGrasse Tyson (play /ˈniːəl dəˈɡræs ˈtaɪsən/ born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist and science communicator. He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. Since 2006 he has hosted the educational science television show NOVA scienceNOW on PBS and has been a frequent guest on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Jeopardy!. It was announced on August 5, 2011, that Tyson will be hosting a new sequel to Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage television series.

He also collaborated with Richard Dawkins.

His first topic was UFO sightings, abduction and conspiracy theory... and he was making fun of it.
Somehow, I find this guy pretty irritating and ignorant.
So, I was wondering what do you think about him?
 
I've seen a few of his TV appearances and heard him on a podcast or two. Seems like he can be an entertaining and engaging guy, but he'll pretty consistently put forth that smug, self-satisfied air of, "We know this, this and this because of Science!" while somewhere squeezing in a supposed "disclaimer" that the greatest thing about science is that it is always self-checking and subject to repudiation with new data, etc. He seems more like an academic type who is deluded by the system but I wouldn't doubt that psy-op/disinfo agents might make use of him in a non-conscious way toward their ends.
 
meta-agnostic said:
I've seen a few of his TV appearances and heard him on a podcast or two. Seems like he can be an entertaining and engaging guy, but he'll pretty consistently put forth that smug, self-satisfied air of, "We know this, this and this because of Science!" while somewhere squeezing in a supposed "disclaimer" that the greatest thing about science is that it is always self-checking and subject to repudiation with new data, etc. He seems more like an academic type who is deluded by the system but I wouldn't doubt that psy-op/disinfo agents might make use of him in a non-conscious way toward their ends.

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I guess he is a member of the Church of Convetional Science :)
I also stumbled on this video _http://youtu.be/NSJElZwEI8o
Somebody asked him what he thinks about UFOs and he repeated everything from the first video, like a parrot, funny.

From Wikipedia:
In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Tyson to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and in 2004 to serve on the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, the latter better known as the "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" commission. Soon afterward he was awarded the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by NASA.

Politician and scientist...
 
With his renewed prominence as host of the re-booted Carl Sagan's Cosmos (which I have not yet seen, but I've heard it pushes a materialist hypothesis), Dr. Tyson is now being trotted out to condemn "climate deniers". In this interview he rants "They deny Science!" without really saying anything or giving any explicit acknowledgement to the debate that climate change is indeed happening but there may be other causes involved besides man-made carbon dioxide and methane. The interview appears to cut off so not sure if there is more where he might have actually said something of substance:

_http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/09/neil-degrasse-tyson-media-has-to-stop-giving-cl/198418
 
I did watch Cosmos the other night out of curiosity. He is definately a great tool for the ptb. He spoke of things such as the big bang as absolutes. The show even started with a promotion by Obama himself.
 
Just watched the most recent (3rd) episode of cosmos. One of the main focuses is on comets, and they really lay it on thick contrasting the silly, superstitious ancients (and not-so-ancients) who considered comets harbingers of calamity, with us enlightened moderns who (thanks to Newton and those who follow) know that we have nothing at all to fear from prodigies in the sky. Along the same lines, in the previous episode (which focused largely on evolution) there is of course a scene where a comet hits the Earth ... but they don't actually show the impact, instead, Tyson just sticks his fingers in his ears while a wimpy shockwave blows by. I found that to be a rather interesting choice for a program that revels in computer-animated eye candy.

Goes without saying, no mention so far of plasma or electricity. Comets are just balls of ice spouting gas and dust, after all :P
 
I realized that i had been taping these, but decided to erase them after watching the first episode. Another waste of energy imo.
 
Tried watching the first episode. If the Electric Universe folks are only half right, Neil is doing more damage than anything else by promoting the ideas that is in the show.
 
I don't mind Mr. deGrasse Tyson at all. Mostly because he is gearing toward the young folks who have no idea of anything outside of themselves. I find the show interesting enough to watch. But because of what I think I know, he doesn't bother me, and I can enjoy the show without having any thought that he isn't bringing up UFO's and what we have discovered.

Fine by me. At least he is getting other people into thinking something outside of what they might have not otherwise. That is a start, who knows, maybe they will start their research there and continue.

IMO
 
Dawn said:
I don't mind Mr. deGrasse Tyson at all. Mostly because he is gearing toward the young folks who have no idea of anything outside of themselves. I find the show interesting enough to watch. But because of what I think I know, he doesn't bother me, and I can enjoy the show without having any thought that he isn't bringing up UFO's and what we have discovered.

Fine by me. At least he is getting other people into thinking something outside of what they might have not otherwise. That is a start, who knows, maybe they will start their research there and continue.

IMO

This is my reaction as well. The vast majority of people know little to nothing about the universe. If this show expands their horizons, encourages them to contemplate deep space and deep time, I'm all in favour of that. It's also introducing them to historical figures (e.g., Giordano Bruno, Edmund Halley) who are typically overlooked. Sure, it promotes what is more or less the astrophysical mainstream, but this isn't particularly surprising.

It was just this kind of material that first got me interested in astronomy and astrophysics when I was young. Alternative viewpoints (UFO research, EU/plasma cosmology, cometary influences on history, etc.) have never been easier to find, and inquiring minds will, I am sure, come across it in due time.

One thing I have very much appreciated is the emotional content of what NDT is communicating. Contemporary astronomy is staggering in scope, and often leaves people feeling very small and insignificant. There's some value in this, because we are, but it can be very disempowering ... and it's not like the Barack Obama's of the world are left feeling small. NDT seems to emphasize the wonder of the situation whereby we are all intimately linked to a vast cosmos, a product of it, and a part of it; the amazing fact that our tiny brains are able in a sense to hold this cosmos inside of themselves; and the remarkable, transgenerational saga by which our knowledge of the cosmos has expanded (his description of the scientific enterprise in these terms at the end of the 3rd episode actually brought a tear to my eye). Such a strategy is, I feel, far more empowering for ordinary people: i.e., you are not just a tiny thing dwarfed by a staggering immensity, but a part of something vast. Does an EU cosmology go even further in emphasizing interconnectivity at multiple scales? Absolutely. But at the moment, with EU still on the fringes, this is the best that can be hoped for within the mainstream.
 
Looks like NdGT is showing more of his true colors. He recently came out in favor of GM foods.

_http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-gmo
_http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-believes-in-gmos-2014-7

Neil deGrasse Tyson said:
I'm amazed how much objection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public. It smacks of the fear factor that exists at every new emergent science, where people don't fully understand it or don't fully know or embrace its consequences, and therefore reject it. What most people don't know, but they should, is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food.

There are no wild seedless watermelons; there's no wild cows; there's no long-stem roses growing in the wild — although we don't eat roses. You list all the fruit, and all the vegetables, and ask yourself: Is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it's not as large, it's not as sweet, it's not as juicy, and it has way more seeds in it.

We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals, that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It's called "artificial selection." That's how we genetically modify them. So now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden you're going to complain?

If you're the complainer type, go back and eat the apples that grow wild. You know something? They're this big, and they're tart. They're not sweet, like Red Delicious apples. We manufactured those. That's a genetic modification.

Do you realize silk cannot be produced in the wild? The silkworm, as we cultivate it, has no wild counterpart because it would die in the wild. So there's not even any silk anymore. So we are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs. I don't have a problem with that, cause we've been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.

Fairly ignorant or deliberately deceptive for the esteemed Dr. Science to equate 'biotech gene splicing from different species' and 'selective breeding' without addressing any of the allegations of harm specifically caused by the former.
 
What's with the hate towards Neil deGrasee Tyson or Carl Sagan? Alright both were/are based in the understanding of what they can see and measure. I grew up with Carl Sagan, and even in his shows back in the 80's he was warning of global warming and destruction of our only eden that we know of. It broke my heart when I found out he was truly an atheist and believed he would just blink out (my mom and I had a few conversations about that). Neil is much the same, though I hope he is an agnostic rather than an atheist. Of course Carl Sagan said much more about it, I only wish that some sorta proof was presented to him before he died. Neil is his #1 student. both of them have warned time and time again about climate change - don't believe me? go watch the original cosmos. Well, I suppose there are enough of Carl Sagan, in the last three episodes of the new version of cosmos. Just because they don't have similar versions of our world view does not make them stupid or folk to be side-lined. In truth we should look to what they see and we do not. If they don't get what we see and say, their eyes aren't wide ... but I remember what Carl Sagan said about this, and he was sooo into discovery. As far as Neil not so sure, but I have not been able to find much about him talking about GM's, most of what I find is solar and wind power. Just sayin'
 
highmystica said:
What's with the hate towards Neil deGrasee Tyson or Carl Sagan? Alright both were/are based in the understanding of what they can see and measure. I grew up with Carl Sagan, and even in his shows back in the 80's he was warning of global warming and destruction of our only eden that we know of. It broke my heart when I found out he was truly an atheist and believed he would just blink out (my mom and I had a few conversations about that). Neil is much the same, though I hope he is an agnostic rather than an atheist. Of course Carl Sagan said much more about it, I only wish that some sorta proof was presented to him before he died. Neil is his #1 student. both of them have warned time and time again about climate change - don't believe me? go watch the original cosmos. Well, I suppose there are enough of Carl Sagan, in the last three episodes of the new version of cosmos. Just because they don't have similar versions of our world view does not make them stupid or folk to be side-lined. In truth we should look to what they see and we do not. If they don't get what we see and say, their eyes aren't wide ... but I remember what Carl Sagan said about this, and he was sooo into discovery. As far as Neil not so sure, but I have not been able to find much about him talking about GM's, most of what I find is solar and wind power. Just sayin'
Highmystica, in the post right above yours there is Tyson talking about how great GMO foods are, so I'm puzzled why you would say you couldn't find much about him talking about GMO. Even if all he said is that quote above, that's enough, I think, along with his unthinking acceptance of the scientific status quo to discredit him in my mind. Not that he isn't smart, but remember what the Cs said about how wrong knowledge is worse than no knowledge.
 
Same here, I can see how Tyson's qualitative grasp of the essence of physics and the cosmos allows him to express beautiful truths (that are obvious to anynewcomer with both an interest in esotericism and science) but when he gets all high and mighty on the horse of western scientific dogma and preaches "technological progress = evolution" or "anthropogenic climate warming denier = luddite", well, he loses all the respect he had earned. He apparently completely lacks understanding of the inner processes of the psyche or of the mehanisms of pathology, which is a massive blind spot for any truthseeker.

As for Carl Sagan, I can't find any honest reason to dislike him.
 
Back
Top Bottom