Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Federalist)   Somebody seriously needs to stage an intervention for Neil deGrasse Tyson. He just keeps making stuff up   (thefederalist.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Neil deGrasse, Dr. Tyson, President Thomas Jefferson, Islamic fundamentalists  
•       •       •

8290 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2014 at 8:20 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



451 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-09-17 1:34:56 PM  

Elegy: Wooly Bully: Elegy: The author of TFA might be a little shiatstain

Well you got one thing right in all of that typing.

The main thing you got completely wrong is that Tyson's inaccurate quotation casts doubt on his overall message. That's what this idiot blogger wants people to believe, of course, but it's pretty obvious why he's doing it, and it isn't his interest in accuracy.

Not really. Or at least, not in these specific article.

The author himself agrees that journalists and politicians often get science wrong, but making shiat up out of thin air undercuts NDT's reliability.

I don't think I remember anything in the article about NDT being wrong overall, but I might be wrong. It's NDT's supporters in this thread that seem to be making that leap, reflexively and defensively.



Tell me again about how this right wing hack truly just wants to help NDGT so that he doesn't hurt his credibility with the public.

I guess I'm not surprised that a concern trolling article by a right wing hack has spawned a thread chock full of concern trolling.
 
2014-09-17 1:35:37 PM  

Chummer45: it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.


Me?  Liberal?  No.

Agreeing with a noted liberal on certain topics regarding science does not make me liberal at all.  I just like science.
 
2014-09-17 1:38:59 PM  

HeadLever: PaulRB: So, science  is the big lie?

?

No, saying that Bush said X in order to argue a specific political point is the apparent lie.  I don't have a problem with his science at all.


NDT has been giving his various science related speeches/talks for something like 15 years now (long before Cosmos).  I've seen a number of them and I've noticed a few variations in his talks that would include inconsistencies.  My conclusion is, that he's human (obviously) and most of these talks are given relatively off the cuff with q&a portions (it's the professor in him).  I'm guessing some of these stories have morphed a bit (over time).  It proves that you shouldn't entirely rely on your memory (even the smartest amongst us).   I wouldn't count any of these as lies but I guess some others, who would like to hate on NDT, would. (not saying you)
 
2014-09-17 1:39:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: another lib

He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?  The nerve of that guy.


No, he's liberal because he twists and distorts objective reality in order to create strawmen that he can attack to make a political point.  That his point is the promotion of what he deems worthy of the moniker "science" (or worse, Science) - i.e., self-promotion - just adds a little irony to the situation.

The fabrication of the GWB anecdote is particularly reprehensible.  Bush's speech on the space shuttle disaster wasn't just appropriate, it was deeply moving, and his invocation of the words of Isaiah reflected the sort of heartfelt compassion we haven't seen in the Oval Office since he left.  It was something that any true advocate for scientific discovery should thank him for, as his central message was:  they have died, but their mission will carry on.  I suspect NDT never actually saw the speech.

Telling that his audience simply laps it up, though.
 
2014-09-17 1:43:34 PM  

HeadLever: It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.


You're concerned that Tyson's story telling employs truth bending for dramatic effect and you feel that it needs to be called out?
 
2014-09-17 1:43:39 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: HeadLever: another lib

He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?  The nerve of that guy.

No, he's liberal because he twists and distorts objective reality in order to create strawmen that he can attack to make a political point.  That his point is the promotion of what he deems worthy of the moniker "science" (or worse, Science) - i.e., self-promotion - just adds a little irony to the situation.

The fabrication of the GWB anecdote is particularly reprehensible.  Bush's speech on the space shuttle disaster wasn't just appropriate, it was deeply moving, and his invocation of the words of Isaiah reflected the sort of heartfelt compassion we haven't seen in the Oval Office since he left.  It was something that any true advocate for scientific discovery should thank him for, as his central message was:  they have died, but their mission will carry on.  I suspect NDT never actually saw the speech.

Telling that his audience simply laps it up, though.


OK, so what do you think of his views on science?  Are they liberal too?  I don't really understand your point.  Problem is, this seems all about bad mouthing a guy that disagrees with you on global warming and has far too much influence on the public at large with his sciency ideas.  Is there where you are coming from?
 
2014-09-17 1:44:07 PM  

Garet Garrett: No, he's liberal because he twists and distorts objective reality in order to create strawmen that he can attack to make a political point.


So you're saying that you're a liberal?
 
2014-09-17 1:44:11 PM  
Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse
 
2014-09-17 1:44:38 PM  

HeadLever: menschenfresser:
I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


If he got a quote wrong, then he got a quote wrong. If that can be proved to be factually correct, then there's no argument to be had. I'm not debating that. What I am standing up for is the body of his actual area of expertise - the scientific stuff. You and many others, including the author of this article, seem to be insinuating that because he got a quote wrong then everything else he says and has said is suspect because he has some kind of agenda. That's not supported by fact. If anyone produces evidence of his science being wrong, we'll change our minds based on the new evidence. However, that hasn't happened. As it stands right now, it's a 2+2=5 slippery slope argument.
 
2014-09-17 1:46:05 PM  

impaler: Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse


I think a few conservative Fark heads just exploded.
 
2014-09-17 1:48:17 PM  

impaler: Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse


That wacky liberal guy was also appointed by Bush to serve on commissions in 2001 and 2004 dealing with aerospace and space exploration policy.
 
2014-09-17 1:49:36 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: HeadLever: another lib

He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?  The nerve of that guy.

No, he's liberal because he twists and distorts objective reality in order to create strawmen that he can attack to make a political point.  That his point is the promotion of what he deems worthy of the moniker "science" (or worse, Science) - i.e., self-promotion - just adds a little irony to the situation.

The fabrication of the GWB anecdote is particularly reprehensible.  Bush's speech on the space shuttle disaster wasn't just appropriate, it was deeply moving, and his invocation of the words of Isaiah reflected the sort of heartfelt compassion we haven't seen in the Oval Office since he left.  It was something that any true advocate for scientific discovery should thank him for, as his central message was:  they have died, but their mission will carry on.  I suspect NDT never actually saw the speech.

Telling that his audience simply laps it up, though.



I love that you managed to construct a straw man accusing NDGT of going around creating strawmen.  You should write a book called "the art of projection derping."
 
2014-09-17 1:50:26 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?

If that is his motivation, that is fine by me.  Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me. However, being a liberal that promotes science but uses lies to make a political point will likely get your error called out.  I may not have any issue with your 'promotes science' part, but I'll likely have an issue with that second part.


Again, what makes him a liberal?  According to the pundits and blogs it's because he stands for scientific principle vs religious dogma.
 
2014-09-17 1:52:37 PM  

Fart_Machine: impaler: Was this too a lie?

under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats." -- Neil deGrasse

That wacky liberal guy was also appointed by Bush to serve on commissions in 2001 and 2004 dealing with aerospace and space exploration policy.



It's difficult for the right wing derposphere to imagine that a scientist could pursue their profession in a nonpartisan way.
 
2014-09-17 1:54:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: Fart_Machine: He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?

If that is his motivation, that is fine by me.  Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me. However, being a liberal that promotes science but uses lies to make a political point will likely get your error called out.  I may not have any issue with your 'promotes science' part, but I'll likely have an issue with that second part.

Again, what makes him a liberal?  According to the pundits and blogs it's because he stands for scientific principle vs religious dogma.



It's because he says things like global warming is real, and then criticizes the (primarily republican) politicians for denying basic science and being completely irresponsible when it comes to climate policy.

If you're steeped in the Brietbart world, often times criticizing republican dogma = you're a flaming liberal
 
2014-09-17 1:55:03 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: another lib

He's liberal because he promotes science and reason versus superstition?  The nerve of that guy.


As we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias.
 
2014-09-17 1:59:01 PM  

PaulRB: OK, so what do you think of his views on science?  Are they liberal too?  I don't really understand your point.  Problem is, this seems all about bad mouthing a guy that disagrees with you on global warming and has far too much influence on the public at large with his sciency ideas.  Is there where you are coming from?


My point is that falsely positing a laughably ignorant position doesn't really make you any smarter, or more right.  And when you screw up the distinction between basic principles like average and median to make your point, you're not helping, you're actually contributing to the scientific illiteracy that's supposedly the problem.

He's very political, in the sense that he's peddling a viewpoint, not teaching science.  He's arguing that certain points of view should be believed, rather than demonstrating why they're correct.  In the GWB example, he's not even doing that...he's arguing that other points of view should be rejected because they're held by people who are, he says, ignorami.  When you slander others to make your point, you should expect some heat, and you certainly should expect some cynicism about the validity of your point.
 
2014-09-17 2:00:15 PM  

NickelP: Jack Harper: NickelP: IlGreven: NickelP: Tyson is a whiney arrogant coont

...like all scientists and atheists, amiriteoramirite.

/Can't tell Tyson and Richard Dawkins apart, can you?

Exactly right.

//I'm agnostic and one of the reasons I don't like him is how he used cosmos for her personal platform. Sagan's version is one of my favorite series of all time. But yeah I hate science and those people that don't believe in my god. Keep sucking thTyson dick

It was fantastic that he used Cosmos has his personal platform.  Someone has to.  Cosmos did a great job of showing what we know and how we came to know it.  Part of that is the people who made discoveries, but the other part is the intellectual climate that allowed people to make those discoveries.  It would be irresponsible of him as a science advocate to not take the opportunity to warn the general public about how that intellectual climate is endangered and how we could lose opportunities to make similar discoveries in the future.

Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that. He made junk aimed at how awful religion is. It is fine to bring up how religions (and more so politics) shaped science in the past, but he went a bit beyond that. I she bishop or whoever had claws/ the scientists always had youthful child like features then the scene would go noticeably darker when the bad church guys came in who were depicted as villians. I mean you can make a show about science or a show about how the church sucks. There is a bit of overlap but he went way too far and it hurt his product. More importantly it hurt his objective of spreading science. No one wants to explain to a five year old how their pastor isn't evil like the man on TV, but they would of liked him to see the science part.


You obviously don't remember the original Cosmos because it was political as hell - advocating for Carbon reduction and chiding those would-be Conquerors (Nixon in his time, Bush in ours).

I'd also suggest that between the original Cosmos and C:ASTO, things have gotten a bit worse. Reliigion has an absymal track record regarding how it treats new data from science, and the modern interpirtation of many of the people who get to make decisions is that they're equally well and good and listen to everything. Well that's bull.

ALL kids should question their pastors, not to mention their parents, teachers, coaches and any other adult they meet. Respect should be earned not granted. Fark Exodus 20:12.
 
2014-09-17 2:01:08 PM  

Chummer45: I love that you managed to construct a straw man accusing NDGT of going around creating strawmen.


I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.  Your highlighted sentence certainly isn't one.
 
2014-09-17 2:03:10 PM  
ohmygodwhothehellcares.jpg
 
2014-09-17 2:03:20 PM  

Garet Garrett: PaulRB: OK, so what do you think of his views on science?  Are they liberal too?  I don't really understand your point.  Problem is, this seems all about bad mouthing a guy that disagrees with you on global warming and has far too much influence on the public at large with his sciency ideas.  Is there where you are coming from?

My point is that falsely positing a laughably ignorant position doesn't really make you any smarter, or more right.  And when you screw up the distinction between basic principles like average and median to make your point, you're not helping, you're actually contributing to the scientific illiteracy that's supposedly the problem.

He's very political, in the sense that he's peddling a viewpoint, not teaching science.  He's arguing that certain points of view should be believed, rather than demonstrating why they're correct. In the GWB example, he's not even doing that...he's arguing that other points of view should be rejected because they're held by people who are, he says, ignorami.  When you slander others to make your point, you should expect some heat, and you certainly should expect some cynicism about the validity of your point.



You're right - I definitely don't know what a straw man argument is.
 
2014-09-17 2:04:00 PM  

NickelP: Depends what you wanted out of it. I kind of wanted something like the original that taught people about science. Something that parents would be glad to show their kids. Something that could be shown in science classes at school. He didn't make that.


What the fark did you watch?  Not the same series I did, apparently.  It is all of those things.  The small (undeniably accurate) digs at dogma were few and far between, and always on topic.

Also, Sagan's wife was a major contributor to the series, so your point about the new series diverging from Sagan's vision is kind of off-base.
 
2014-09-17 2:08:59 PM  

Chummer45: Garet Garrett: PaulRB: OK, so what do you think of his views on science?  Are they liberal too?  I don't really understand your point.  Problem is, this seems all about bad mouthing a guy that disagrees with you on global warming and has far too much influence on the public at large with his sciency ideas.  Is there where you are coming from?

My point is that falsely positing a laughably ignorant position doesn't really make you any smarter, or more right.  And when you screw up the distinction between basic principles like average and median to make your point, you're not helping, you're actually contributing to the scientific illiteracy that's supposedly the problem.

He's very political, in the sense that he's peddling a viewpoint, not teaching science.  He's arguing that certain points of view should be believed, rather than demonstrating why they're correct.  In the GWB example, he's not even doing that...he's arguing that other points of view should be rejected because they're held by people who are, he says, ignorami.  When you slander others to make your point, you should expect some heat, and you certainly should expect some cynicism about the validity of your point.


You're right - I definitely don't know what a straw man argument is.


Forget it he's rolling.
 
2014-09-17 2:12:58 PM  

Geotpf: And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.


Ayep.

Geotpf: He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.


I'd not go that far; more that Tyson is looking foolish for exhibiting the exact same sort of imperfect recall as other humans -- who he's called out on.

For myself, I think the ideal approach for Tyson would be to own up and then run with the theme.
And possibly about how humans need to get used to fallible "feet of clay" heroes, and heroes need to get used to having their imperfections highlighted.
 
2014-09-17 2:15:45 PM  
Unfortunately, to understand the trolling in this thread we have to first achieve a greater understanding of what right wingers actually believe.  It is commonly believed on the right that climate science is not valid, and in reality is just a conspiracy among climate scientists designed to scare governments into giving them more grant money.  The scientists are working in concert with liberals, who want to enact climate legislation as part of an effort to create a socialist world government that abandons the free enterprise system.  Therefore, when he publicly speaks about climate science, NDGT is acting as an agent of the liberals trying to impose socialism on America and ruin the economy.

I really wish I was making this shiat up.  But this mainstream thinking on the right regarding climate change, and it explains perfectly why there are so many shiat stirrers in this thread blathering on and on about how NDGT is a liberal hack, etc:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html
 
2014-09-17 2:17:05 PM  

impaler: Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't "making it up." Maybe he's just remembering wrong. These are, after all, very minor details.
Now I can see why a right-wing pundit would assume he's deliberately making it up (even though there would be no real need to) - projection. This is basically all they do.


Also seems to deserve repeating.
 
2014-09-17 2:17:39 PM  

Chummer45: Unfortunately, to understand the trolling in this thread we have to first achieve a greater understanding of what right wingers actually believe.  It is commonly believed on the right that climate science is not valid, and in reality is just a conspiracy among climate scientists designed to scare governments into giving them more grant money.  The scientists are working in concert with liberals, who want to enact climate legislation as part of an effort to create a socialist world government that abandons the free enterprise system.  Therefore, when he publicly speaks about climate science, NDGT is acting as an agent of the liberals trying to impose socialism on America and ruin the economy.

I really wish I was making this shiat up.  But this mainstream thinking on the right regarding climate change, and it explains perfectly why there are so many shiat stirrers in this thread blathering on and on about how NDGT is a liberal hack, etc:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html


Back Door Socialism would make a great porn title.
 
2014-09-17 2:19:09 PM  

ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.


He was.  Agreed
 
2014-09-17 2:20:51 PM  

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: "I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about...


Whoa, hold on a sec....who the fark listens to a Chris Hardwick podcast?
 
2014-09-17 2:21:14 PM  

abb3w: Geotpf: And, it happened in 2003 instead of "immediately following 9/11".

And, Bush was talking about the Space Shuttle crash as opposed to Islam or 9/11.

And, Tyson didn't get the quote even close to correct.

Ayep.

Geotpf: He presents a compelling argument that Tyson appears to make up a lot of quotes and anecdotes out of thin air.

I'd not go that far; more that Tyson is looking foolish for exhibiting the exact same sort of imperfect recall as other humans -- who he's called out on.

For myself, I think the ideal approach for Tyson would be to own up and then run with the theme.
And possibly about how humans need to get used to fallible "feet of clay" heroes, and heroes need to get used to having their imperfections highlighted.



Um... if you watch cosmos he frequently points out that scientists get stuff wrong all the time, and don't purport to have all the answers.  But he emphasizes that the key to science is that it is proven wrong by applying scientific principles.

For political reasons, people on the right tend to conflate the idea that science isn't perfect with the notion that science is wrong about specific things that are not in any way controversial in the scientific community (but which conservatives reject for political or religious reasons), such as evolution, or human caused climate change.
 
2014-09-17 2:24:17 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.

He was.  Agreed



Bush also at least didn't deny climate science.  But as with many things involving the Bush administration, his actual policies in this regard were terrible.
 
2014-09-17 2:34:47 PM  

amindtat: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: "I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about...

Whoa, hold on a sec....who the fark listens to a Chris Hardwick podcast?


I know I shouldn't admit this in public, but I find Chris Hardwick kinda attractive.
 
2014-09-17 2:35:19 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.


That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


On the other hand, it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.


How did you get him pretending to be a liberal out of that?
 
2014-09-17 2:45:58 PM  

I alone am best: Chummer45: HeadLever: menschenfresser: Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the message itself is false. How physics and cosmology are lies from the pit of hell because this man is a nefarious partisan with an agenda/conspiracy to fool our children into believing in "science" (and we all know it has to be believed in to be true!) and that the Bible is the real truth, being 100% word-for-word true. Go ahead and tell us about how NDT's message is false instead of just going after him personally.


That is not the message that NDT was presenting here.  His message was as follows:

Here's what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

I have no issues with his message on physics and cosmology.  In fact I pretty much agree with them across the board.  That does not mean that I have to agree with him on his specific message of the mechanism of how Bush divides 'us vs. them'.

It takes a bit of intellectual honesty to call out those on 'your side' when they are being disingenuous.  That is difficult for some.


On the other hand, it takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that you're a liberal to appear more credible.

How did you get him pretending to be a liberal out of that?



It had more to do with this statement by Headlever:

"Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me."

I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.
 
2014-09-17 2:49:31 PM  

Chummer45: It had more to do with this statement by Headlever:

"Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me."

I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.


Yeah, I doubt it too. However, everyone on here knows he is not a liberal.
 
2014-09-17 2:51:43 PM  

menschenfresser: amindtat: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: "I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about...

Whoa, hold on a sec....who the fark listens to a Chris Hardwick podcast?

I know I shouldn't admit this in public, but I find Chris Hardwick kinda attractive.


Some of his podcasts (the Nerdist ones, not literally every other podcast on his channel) are funny.
 
2014-09-17 2:51:53 PM  

Chummer45: Reverend Monkeypants: ginandbacon: You know, not for nothing but Bush was very firm in his message that Muslims shouldn't be blamed for 9/11. It was one of the few things I actually admired about him.

He was.  Agreed


Bush also at least didn't deny climate science.  But as with many things involving the Bush administration, his actual policies in this regard were terrible.


I think my point was that it would have been really odd for him to have said anything anti-Muslim in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 given his obviously sincere belief that Islam had nothing to do with what happened and how hard he worked to express that belief. It's one thing to misremember a quote or context when it doesn't change your basic conclusion, but this particular misremembering could only come out this way if he were fundamentally wrong to start with.

Bush was many many things but anti-Muslim isn't he wasn't and deGrasse Tyson accusied him of being just that. That's sloppy and immature and frankly, it's slander. (Not in any legal sense.)

I haven't bothered to look at the other quotes but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he might have screwed up on those as well. The Bush one is so jarringly wrong it's not hard to believe he does, indeed, have a problem.
 
2014-09-17 2:54:52 PM  
I agree that Tyson should brush up on his quotes if he's gonna haul them out at public speaking engagements.

OTOH he does have a publishing history. Just checked Web of Science, out of 137 articles attributed to him, the following are the scientific ones. Looks like he published some influential articles early in his career, then went off to write columns for Natural History. But his name is on a few recent ones.

The faint-end slopes of galaxy luminosity functions in the COSMOS field  Astrophysical Journal v. 672 no.1 p.198-206 Jan 1. 2008. last author. Cited 11 times.

The cosmic evolution survey (cosmos): Overview   Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series v. 172 no.1 p.1-8 Sept. 2007. Last author. Cited 536 times.

COSMOS: Hubble space telescope observations   Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series v. 172 no.1 p.38-45 Sept. 2007. Last author. Cited 183 times

Optical light curves of the type Ia supernovae SN 1990N and SN 1991T (vol 115, pg 234, 1998)    Astronomical Journal v. 116 no.2 p. 1006-1007 Aug. 1998. Listed in last third of authors. Cited 5 times.

Optical light curves of the type Ia supernovae SN 1990N and SN 1991T   Astronomical Journal v. 115 no.1 p.234-236 Jan 1998. Listed in last third of authors. Cited 90 times. [not sure if citation above repeats this one, or just refers to it]


THE TYPE-IA SUPERNOVA 1989B IN NGC-3627 (M66) Astronomical Journal v. 108 no. 6 Dec. 1994 p.2223-2250. Last author.  Cited 122 times

THE EXPANDING PHOTOSPHERE METHOD APPLIED TO SN-1992AM AT CZ=14600KM-S  Astronomical Journal v.107 no.4 p.1444-& [sic] Apr 1994 Last author. Cited 45 times

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A MAJOR IMPACT ON URANUS IN THE PAST CENTURY  Astronomy & Astrophysics v.275 no.2 p. 630-634 Aug. 1993. First author. Cited 0 times.

AN EXPOSURE GUIDE FOR TAKING TWILIGHT FLATFIELDS WITH LARGE FORMAT CCDS   Astronomical Journal v.105 no.3 p.1206-1212 Mar 1993. First author. Cited 18 times.

A STUDY OF THE ABUNDANCE DISTRIBUTIONS ALONG THE MINOR AXIS OF THE GALACTIC BULGE  Book series: IAU SYMPOSIA issue 153 p. 333-335 1993. Cited 0 times.

RADIAL-VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION AND LINE STRENGTHS OF 33 CARBON STARS IN THE GALACTIC BULGE   Astrophysical Journal v. 367 no.2 p. 547-560 pt. 1. Feb. 1, 1991. First author. Cited 29 times.

BURSTING DWARF GALAXIES - IMPLICATIONS FOR LUMINOSITY FUNCTION, SPACE DENSITY, AND COSMOLOGICAL MASS DENSITY Astrophysical Journal v.329 no.2 p. 618-628 pt. 1 Jun 15 1988. First author. Cited 49 times.

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF GAS-RICH DWARF GALAXIES IN THE LYMAN-ALPHA FOREST   Astrophysical Journal v.329 no.2 p. L57-59 Pt. 2 June 15 1988. First author. Cited 50 times.
 
2014-09-17 3:07:21 PM  

Chummer45: Unfortunately, to understand the trolling in this thread we have to first achieve a greater understanding of what right wingers actually believe.  It is commonly believed on the right that climate science is not valid, and in reality is just a conspiracy among climate scientists designed to scare governments into giving them more grant money.  The scientists are working in concert with liberals, who want to enact climate legislation as part of an effort to create a socialist world government that abandons the free enterprise system.  Therefore, when he publicly speaks about climate science, NDGT is acting as an agent of the liberals trying to impose socialism on America and ruin the economy.

I really wish I was making this shiat up.  But this mainstream thinking on the right regarding climate change, and it explains perfectly why there are so many shiat stirrers in this thread blathering on and on about how NDGT is a liberal hack, etc:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global _w arming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html


"The Federalist" seems to be a never-ending font of right wing insanity and denial.
 
2014-09-17 3:08:11 PM  

I alone am best: Chummer45: It had more to do with this statement by Headlever:

"Being liberal that promotes science will get you a high five from me."

I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.

Yeah, I doubt it too. However, everyone on here knows he is not a liberal.



True.  My underlying point was that he's just obviously concern trolling.
 
2014-09-17 3:09:04 PM  
I think he needs to sit down and swap stories with Sarah Palin.
 
2014-09-17 3:16:19 PM  

Chummer45: Tell me again about how this right wing hack truly just wants to help NDGT so that he doesn't hurt his credibility with the public.

I guess I'm not surprised that a concern trolling article by a right wing hack has spawned a thread chock full of concern trolling.


Tell me again where I said this right wing hack wanted to help NDT? Your reading comprehension sucks.

This guys motivations might be to undermine NDT specifically and science in favor of Jeebus. But hey, guess what? In the context of the 4 articles I read, he was smart enough not to make that leap of logic once.

Really, I could give a shiat if the guy goes home and jerks it to his Jeebus statue every night, or dresses in ladies underwear, or has 4 sister-wives. I care that he presented direct quotes and photos of slides from NGD, and laid out the evidence that NGD was referencing things that never happened in a clear and logical manner (he did l), and perhaps even offered some alternative examples that could have been used instead (he did).

As presented, the fact seem to be on his side: he makes a good case, with evidence like lexis-nexus searchers, that go a ways towards providing evidence that this shiat never happened. It's poor conduct on NGD's part to present them as if they did, period.

No one ever said this invalidates science, or the point that politicians and journalists don't understand science - at least not the author of the article or any rational, thinking adult that read this piece. Hell, the guy that wrote the article admitted as much himself that politicians and journalists are dumb as dirt when it comes to science, so he conceded NDT's point to him. It's shiatty partisanship to excuse him on it because of politics, period. At the very least he was pretty damn irresponsible not verifying his examples.

It's the idiots in this thread that are throwing up the "NDT got some examples wrong therefore dinosaurs riding Jeebus" strawmen. Partisanship is disgusting - and the author of TFA at least managed to keep his out of his damn article, unlike most of the commenters here like yourself.
 
2014-09-17 3:16:43 PM  

PaulRB: NDT has been giving his various science related speeches/talks for something like 15 years now (long before Cosmos).  I've seen a number of them and I've noticed a few variations in his talks that would include inconsistencies.  My conclusion is, that he's human (obviously) and most of these talks are given relatively off the cuff with q&a portions (it's the professor in him).  I'm guessing some of these stories have morphed a bit (over time).  It proves that you shouldn't entirely rely on your memory (even the smartest amongst us).   I wouldn't count any of these as lies but I guess some others, who would like to hate on NDT, would. (not saying you)


Yeah, I can agree with most of that.  Obviously, I don't agree with painting this obvious 'misstatement' as just a ho-hum mistake, but I agree that we can  all be subjected to allowing our politics get in the way of the truth sometimes.

If I make the same kind of bogus statement here on Fark, you can bet that there would be an appropriate dogpile.
 
2014-09-17 3:21:26 PM  

Headso: You're concerned that Tyson's story telling political argument employs truth bending for dramatic effect for thesupporting premise and you feel that it needs to be called out?


Yeah, anytime one uses an obvious lie to support a political argument, you can be certain that someone will be there to call it out.

/Rightfully so
 
2014-09-17 3:24:25 PM  

Chummer45: I have a feeling that he's not going around giving high fives to people for being liberal.


It depends.  I don't hate liberals.  I may not agree with them on too many issues, but if I feel like they are doing something worth, I'll give credit where credit is due.  Promoting science is always good in my book.
 
2014-09-17 3:27:58 PM  
Those comments are...so...just...durrrr. I'm sure conservative spirits were buoyed over the past few days with the news that ISIS is banning science and social studies in the captured territories. Just someone else to look up to for ideology.
 
2014-09-17 3:29:14 PM  

Egalitarian: I agree that Tyson should brush up on his quotes if he's gonna haul them out at public speaking engagements.

OTOH he does have a publishing history. Just checked Web of Science, out of 137 articles attributed to him, the following are the scientific ones. Looks like he published some influential articles early in his career, then went off to write columns for Natural History. But his name is on a few recent ones.


Wow. That's... Not that impressive, actually. His latest work tends to be as last author - often that's graduate students that want a big name on their work. His sole and first author stuff was done 20 years ago and rarely cited.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - some people hate the treadmill and the publications arms race that academic research has become. It's certainly not for everyone, and he obviously enjoys outreach and education more. All well and good.

But the way everyone talks about him and his general reputation, I had it in my head that he was more of a Hawking or Penrose type - research first, books for the public second.

Huh.
 
2014-09-17 3:40:34 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: You're concerned that Tyson's story telling political argument employs truth bending for dramatic effect for thesupporting premise and you feel that it needs to be called out?

Yeah, anytime one uses an obvious lie to support a political argument, you can be certain that someone will be there to call it out.

/Rightfully so


It's not an obvious lie though, it isn't even a departure from what the people he is talking about typically say which makes me believe it's just a guy bending the truth for effect as people who tell stories and speak publicly typically do or he could have even misremembered the quote or was told the story by someone he respected and he's just relaying it. For some reason this minutia is very concerning to the pundit/pathological liar writing this editorial and yourself. IMO it's not but I don't have some weird anti-science agenda.
 
2014-09-17 3:43:23 PM  

Elegy: Partisanship is disgusting


If you actually believed that, you'd be ripping on this clown's ludicrous blog post for the rabid partisan hit job that it obviously is.
 
2014-09-17 3:49:19 PM  

Headso: HeadLever: Headso: You're concerned that Tyson's story telling political argument employs truth bending for dramatic effect for thesupporting premise and you feel that it needs to be called out?

Yeah, anytime one uses an obvious lie to support a political argument, you can be certain that someone will be there to call it out.

/Rightfully so

It's not an obvious lie though, it isn't even a departure from what the people he is talking about typically say which makes me believe it's just a guy bending the truth for effect as people who tell stories and speak publicly typically do or he could have even misremembered the quote or was told the story by someone he respected and he's just relaying it. For some reason this minutia is very concerning to the pundit/pathological liar writing this editorial and yourself. IMO it's not but I don't have some weird anti-science agenda.



My favorite part of the article might be this:

Tyson butchered the quote. He butchered the date. He butchered the context. He butchered the implication. And he butchered the biblical allusion, which was to the prophet Isaiah, not the book of Genesis (you can tell Bush was alluding to Isaiah because he explicitly said he was referencing Isaiah).
Bush's statement about the Creator had nothing to do with making "us" look better than "them": it was an attempt to comfort the families who lost loved ones in the crash. They weren't nameless creatures who passed anonymously; their ultimate Creator, the one who knit them together in their mothers' wombs, mourned them by name. Heck, that same Creator even gave up his one and only Son that those lost souls might one day be reconciled to God through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. It was a message of hope and unity, not a message of division authored in the fog of war.



Mr. Concern troll hack seems to be most offended by the fact that Tyson failed to appreciate that Bush was just being an awesome christian praising the christian God as he should. He also seems upset that Tyson didn't appreciate the "fact" that God knits together fetuses in their mothers' wombs.  Also, he's indirectly accusing Tyson of not caring about the people who died.

If we want to talk about credibility and ulterior motives, perhaps the place to start would be analyzing the author of this stupid blog post.
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.