Your thoughts on Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Otto Kretschmer]

What do you think of this guy? How does he compare to Carl Sagan in your opinion?

Personally I like him. He did an awesome job in Cosmos: A Spacetime Oddysey. I am yet to watch Cosmos: Possible Worlds as it didn't air in my country. 

Although he's sometimes wrong when he talks about stuff that isn't space related. His remarks after a school shooting on the US were quite insensitive too.

Any thoughts?

[exchemist]

38 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

What do you think of this guy? How does he compare to Carl Sagan in your opinion?

Personally I like him. He did an awesome job in Cosmos: A Spacetime Oddysey. I am yet to watch Cosmos: Possible Worlds as it didn't air in my country. 

Although he's sometimes wrong when he talks about stuff that isn't space related. His remarks after a school shooting on the US were quite insensitive too.

Any thoughts?

My opinion of him went down considerably when I learned he has tried to rubbish philosophy: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/05/20/pigliucci-pwns-neil-degrasse-tyson-smbc-teases-pigliucci/

He doesn't seem to understand that science is both rooted in philosophy and poses philosophical questions. So I suspect he's a bit shallow. I'm sure he knows his science but I would take anything he says about other matters with a pinch of salt.

Edited May 5 by exchemist

[Eise]

What else can I do, than giving you +1

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

What do you think of this guy? How does he compare to Carl Sagan in your opinion?

Personally I like him. He did an awesome job in Cosmos: A Spacetime Oddysey. I am yet to watch Cosmos: Possible Worlds as it didn't air in my country. 

Although he's sometimes wrong when he talks about stuff that isn't space related. His remarks after a school shooting on the US were quite insensitive too.

Any thoughts?

My thoughts are, he's a good teacher at a certain level, IOW he's read at least two pages past his student's, but doesn't understand the question of puberty... 

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

My opinion of him went down considerably when I learned he has tried to rubbish philosophy: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/05/20/pigliucci-pwns-neil-degrasse-tyson-smbc-teases-pigliucci/

He doesn't seem to understand that science is both rooted in philosophy and poses philosophical questions. So I suspect he's a bit shallow. I'm sure he knows his science but I would take anything he says about other matters with a pinch of salt.

I'm with @Eise +1, just late to the conversation...

[Genady]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

... https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/05/20/pigliucci-pwns-neil-degrasse-tyson-smbc-teases-pigliucci/

He doesn't seem to understand that science is both rooted in philosophy and poses philosophical questions.

From what I heard and read from him, I am sure he knows and understands this very well.

[Mordred]

I personally don't base my opinion of any physicist by how popular they are in the media etc. Yes they tend to excel at taking complex topics and simplifying for the public which is very useful and beneficial. It generates interest to help generate new students as well as enhances interest for research etc. So that's never a bad thing.

However I tend to focus on their research papers etc. Neil DeGrasse papers aren't bad but someone like Sean Carroll has a wider range of recommended literature. However that's just me 

[MigL]

I'm sure he'd be a lot more agreeable as to the value and purpose of Philosophy if he had the opportunity to chat with our own Eise.

[MSC]

Wow! I didn't realise Tyson and Pigliucci had beef. Definitely diminishes my respect for Tyson a little bit, but I'm a also little biased because I've spoken to Massimo personally on a number of occasions... I should really send him an apology, kind of chewed him out last we spoke and was marginally unfair. Crazy story though; I had beef with a philosophy community, Massimo vouched for me because he felt somewhat responsible for what happened there, was this whole AMA event he'd been invited to and I'd been invited to ask him questions out of a handful of people on that particular forum, then found myself uninvited because I added to the question after they'd greenlighted my first draft and instead of changing it back, I cited the forums rules about how moderators aren't allowed to edit user content and also cited some stoic works about integrity; while negotiating with one mod, another banned me altogether permanently. So I contacted Massimo myself and he tried to get me back in and was pissed they were losing their heads, breaking their own rules just because he had agreed to come onto the forum. They didn't listen, the ban stood and I lost about 3 good friends who I've never been able to get back in touch with and access to a lot of good conversations about philosophy etc that were in my messages on that forum. Man I was pissed! This was like a year before I came here.

@MigLShould I try and chew out Tyson next or am I bit much? Lol

[Eise]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:43 PM, MigL said:

I'm sure he'd be a lot more agreeable as to the value and purpose of Philosophy if he had the opportunity to chat with our own Eise.

Don't exaggerate, MigL. Pigliucci is perfect for the job.

I think the problem is simply that many scientists, like Tyson and Krauss, have no idea that (nearly) no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths. 

Also see the feud between Krauss and David Albert.

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, MSC said:

Wow! I didn't realise Tyson and Pigliucci had beef. Definitely diminishes my respect for Tyson a little bit, but I'm a also little biased because I've spoken to Massimo personally on a number of occasions... I should really send him an apology, kind of chewed him out last we spoke and was marginally unfair. Crazy story though; I had beef with a philosophy community, Massimo vouched for me because he felt somewhat responsible for what happened there, was this whole AMA event he'd been invited to and I'd been invited to ask him questions out of a handful of people on that particular forum, then found myself uninvited because I added to the question after they'd greenlighted my first draft and instead of changing it back, I cited the forums rules about how moderators aren't allowed to edit user content and also cited some stoic works about integrity; while negotiating with one mod, another banned me altogether permanently. So I contacted Massimo myself and he tried to get me back in and was pissed they were losing their heads, breaking their own rules just because he had agreed to come onto the forum. They didn't listen, the ban stood and I lost about 3 good friends who I've never been able to get back in touch with and access to a lot of good conversations about philosophy etc that were in my messages on that forum. Man I was pissed! This was like a year before I came here.

@MigLShould I try and chew out Tyson next or am I bit much? Lol

As a rank amateur in these matters, I must say Pigliucci and Peter Woit are 2 people I value highly as thoughtful but clear and well grounded,  with functioning bullshit detectors. Degrasse Tyson and Krauss are slightly  too glib for my taste.

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Degrasse Tyson ...  too glib for my taste.

I second this (regardless of his opinions about philosophy.)

[MSC]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:26 AM, Genady said:

From what I heard and read from him, I am sure he knows and understands this very well.

Dyou think he sees the irony in the fact that while poo pooing philosophy, his approach to language use and advocacy of precision based language is very relevant to philosophy of language and that he often waxes classicly philosophical in both speaking engagements, interviews, unscripted and scripted via his documentary work. 

I think that kind of tees me off a little bit because I'd say he definitely falls into the category of people smart enough to know better. Philosophy is in everything we do. There are so many current idioms and turn of phrase that have common everyday usage but are actually linguistic snapshots of the works of individual philosophers or people engaged in philosophy.

I mean the existence of science owes itself to natural philosophy. 

@Eise Is this a situation where you can apply the non-identity argument? That Neils assaults on philosophy and his field and academic position and ability to make those assaults are made possible by philosophies very existence? Similarly to how you would apply it to arguments against antinatalism? Sorry for the tangents. You should really show up more on the ethics and politics boards. Your input would be invaluable truly. 

42 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Degrasse Tyson and Krauss are slightly  too glib for my taste.

Like frat boys.

[joigus]

22 hours ago, Eise said:

Don't exaggerate, MigL. Pigliucci is perfect for the job.

I think the problem is simply that many scientists, like Tyson and Krauss, have no idea that (nearly) no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths. 

Also see the feud between Krauss and David Albert.

Maybe it's just an impression on my part, but I think many scientists are unaware of changes in philosophy having taken place in past decades, plus the relatively recent coming of age of a new breed of philosopher scientists.

[Genady]

24 minutes ago, joigus said:

Maybe it's just an impression on my part, but I think many scientists are unaware of changes in philosophy having taken place in past decades, plus the relatively recent coming of age of a new breed of philosopher scientists.

I (not a scientist) am unaware of these changes either but would like to get a taste of them. Any recommendations?

[Otto Kretschmer]

What do you guys think of this comment of his?

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I (not a scientist) am unaware of these changes either but would like to get a taste of them. Any recommendations?

@Eise is the local expert, if I'm allowed to say so. Eg, I'd heard about this David Z. Albert that he mentioned, but I'm not familiar with his work. The only book I can recommend is Michael Redhead's wonderful, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, which I liked quite a bit. Carl Popper and Russell etc, are of course classics, but I assume you've got that covered. Bohm was very philosophy-inclined, but his philosophy is sometimes perceived as impregnated with mysticism.

Really --and Eise's and others' recommendations pending--, Michael Redhead's book is a very good and very serious read.

I assume you meant physics, of course. 

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

What do you guys think of this comment of his?

 

Like I said, he doesn't understand puberty...

[TheVat]

18 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

What do you guys think of this comment of his?

I think the comparisons are what philosophers call "trivially true."  His math is correct but it misses the point.  Medical errors kill more people than mass shootings but medical errors don't jump out in a movie theater or shopping mall or school and start slaughtering.  Mass shootings have unique aspects of horror because of their psychological effects and ability to spark mass fear - and destruction of what were perceived as safe spaces in our lives.  So, yes, Neil does tend to be glib and dismissive sometimes.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think the comparisons are what philosophers call "trivially true."  His math is correct but it misses the point.  Medical errors kill more people than mass shootings but medical errors don't jump out in a movie theater or shopping mall or school and start slaughtering.  Mass shootings have unique aspects of horror because of their psychological effects and ability to spark mass fear - and destruction of what were perceived as safe spaces in our lives.  So, yes, Neil does tend to be glib and dismissive sometimes.

Ohh snap, welcome to my labyrinth of echos... 😉 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I (not a scientist) am unaware of these changes either but would like to get a taste of them. Any recommendations?

Bas van Fraassen, The Empirical Stance.  

[Genady]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Carl Popper and Russell etc, are of course classics, but I assume you've got that covered.

Yes.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

I assume you meant physics, of course.

And mathematics.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Michael Redhead's wonderful, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism

Thank you.

Just have looked at it in amazon. Have several concerns:

1. Although it technically falls into the range of "past decades", it is older than I'd like.

2. The amazon description says about the book's topic, "whether quantum mechanics gives a complete account of microphysical reality", which is not what I expect in case of "no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths".

3. $80 paperback, no Kindle version.

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Bas van Fraassen, The Empirical Stance.  

Thank you.

Some 35+ years ago I took (and successfully passed) a semester class in philosophy of science from Prof. Agassi in Tel-Aviv University. We went through a set of schools of thought. I would like to learn about new, later ideas.

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

...Mass shootings have unique aspects of horror because of their psychological effects and ability to spark mass fear - and destruction of what were perceived as safe spaces in our lives...

Isn't this another way of phrasing Tyson's concluding sentence 

Quote

Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.

What point am I missing?

[TheVat]

5 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Isn't this another way of phrasing Tyson's concluding sentence 

What point am I missing?

The point that people are responding to more than just "spectacle."  There is more to mass shooting data than just numeric data on fatality - creating public terror of public spaces has real measurable effects on civic life, and quality of life assessment, even if the risk assessments that people make are wobbly.  Tyson is correct, but I felt he was ignoring the psychological effects of mass shootings over time.  There's also a copycat effect, with mass shootings, that one doesn't see with other morbidity causes he lists, which further ratchets up public fear and distress.  

[sethoflagos]

38 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The point that people are responding to more than just "spectacle."  There is more to mass shooting data than just numeric data on fatality - creating public terror of public spaces has real measurable effects on civic life, and quality of life assessment, even if the risk assessments that people make are wobbly.  Tyson is correct, but I felt he was ignoring the psychological effects of mass shootings over time.  There's also a copycat effect, with mass shootings, that one doesn't see with other morbidity causes he lists, which further ratchets up public fear and distress.  

Fine distinction. I suspect such nuances would be lost on his target demographic. Maybe he was simply pointing out that sensationalist headlines can distort our perspectives. Some people need to be told that.

He does undeniably important work in science communication so I don't really see the purpose of this thread. So what if he and his audience don't have much time for old white philosophers: it isn't as if an adult film starlet had spanked him with a rolled up copy of Scientific American or something.

[joigus]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

1. Although it technically falls into the range of "past decades", it is older than I'd like.

 

I see. I don't think much that is essential has changed since the time it was written though.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

2. The amazon description says about the book's topic, "whether quantum mechanics gives a complete account of microphysical reality", which is not what I expect in case of "no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths".

 

Ok. In that case the Amazon description could be misleading. It's only concenced with the postulates, and their logical consequences. IOW, whether or not the postulational basis of QM can be seen to describe the picture of a mathematical reality.

Whether the logical implications correspond to empirical truths is taken for granted --it does-- and not a main point --or even a relevant point, AFAICR-- of the book.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

3. $80 paperback, no Kindle version.

I see.