Genady Posted May 13 Posted May 13 4 hours ago, Eise said: what an author is trying to say, and in what discourse she is presenting his text. Is this combination of she/his intentional? 4 hours ago, Eise said: Philosophy also has its technical concepts I would hope so. 4 hours ago, Eise said: That could be a good start. Thanks again.
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 (edited) Can NdGT be called a scientist in your opinion, given that he's hardly published anything in 30 years? He obviously trained as a scientist but an average practicing astrophysicist publishes more papers each year than he did in his entire career. What's your opinion on the matter? Also, should he be talking about stuff that is outside his area of expertise? I remember him in a YT video about depression saying something like "we already know which chemicals make you happy and which dont", which is wrong since we know very little about what causes depression. Do you know any other situations when he was wrong? Edited May 13 by Otto Kretschmer 1
swansont Posted May 13 Posted May 13 16 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Can NdGT be called a scientist in your opinion, given that he's hardly published anything in 30 years? You can be a scientist but not publish very much; it depends on your circumstances. Not every scientist lives in the "publish or perish" world of academia. In any event, he has a number of journal publications in the last 30 years. here are three from <20 years back The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field C. T. Liu et al., 2008, Astrophysical Journal Letters, v.672, p.198 COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.38 The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.1 16 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: He obviously trained as a scientist but an average practicing astrophysicist publishes more papers each year than he did in his entire career. I'd like a citation on that "fact" 16 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Also, should he be talking about stuff that is outside his area of expertise? IMO no, but it also depends on the level of discussion. If you aren't supposed to discuss things outside of your area of expertise we'd have to disband SFN. i.e. you can still know certain things and discuss them despite not being an expert. The issue is knowing your limits and recognizing when you are out of your depth. 16 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: I remember him in a YT video about depression saying something like "we already know which chemicals make you happy and which dont", which is wrong. We don't know. Do you know any other situations when he was wrong? We aren't aware of serotonin and dopamine? That's news to me. Your summary sounds like he was making general statements, which doesn't require expertise. It's wrong in the same sense that all science discussion is wrong - there's always more detail, and general statements always have caveats. But if you object to general statements, you'd have to eliminate almost all discussion. 2
Eise Posted May 13 Posted May 13 36 minutes ago, Genady said: Is this combination of she/his intentional? No, in the daily meaning of the word. Changing 'he' in 'she', I forgot that there still was a 'his' in the sentence... 32 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Can NdGT be called a scientist in your opinion, given that he's hardly published anything in 30 years? He obviously trained as a scientist but an average practicing astrophysicist publishes more papers each year than he did in his entire career. What for goods sake is the importance of that?
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 (edited) @swansont I found the specific video He's mostly right except when he's saying "we're almost there". We are not IMO. We know little about what causes depression and the "chemical imbalance theory" was proven to be wrong since for example serotonin levels raise significantly within hours of taking antidepressants while it takes 6-8 weeks for them to fully work and they don't work for everyone. So it's not serotonin that is curing depression and it's not low serotonin which causes it. Edited May 13 by Otto Kretschmer
TheVat Posted May 13 Posted May 13 45 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: was proven to be wrong since for example serotonin levels raise significantly within hours of taking antidepressants while it takes 6-8 weeks for them to fully work and they don't work for everyone. So it's not serotonin that is curing depression and it's not low serotonin which causes it. This is inaccurate. Your "proof" is like saying milk isn't helping calcium deficient bones because blood calcium levels rise within hours of drinking but it takes weeks for bone density to increase. After carrying a message, serotonin is usually reabsorbed by the nerve cells. SSRIs work by blocking reuptake, meaning more serotonin is available to pass further messages between nearby nerve cells. This isn't a rapid mood booster in depressives, but rather provides an unusual surplus of neurotransmitter which assists in a healing process that can take quite a while before a more favorable (to emotional response) pattern of signaling pathways is established. Further quite a bit of therapeutic knowledge exists as to how to reap the most benefit from an SSRI course, so we do know a bit about the mix of chemical, behavioral, environmental, and social contributions to depression. Not having seen the video, I don't know how far I'd go in agreeing with NDGT, but your "how come SSRIs don't work in a few hours" criticism is not based on an understanding of how SSRI works. 1
dimreepr Posted May 13 Posted May 13 4 hours ago, MSC said: I'd say the crash course is best for really enhancing an understanding of some of the hard to grasp concepts. I'd say a crash course is prophetic irony...
swansont Posted May 13 Posted May 13 1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said: He's mostly right except when he's saying "we're almost there". We are not IMO. We know little about what causes depression and the "chemical imbalance theory" was proven to be wrong since for example serotonin levels raise significantly within hours of taking antidepressants while it takes 6-8 weeks for them to fully work and they don't work for everyone. So it's not serotonin that is curing depression and it's not low serotonin which causes it. Except that's not what he said. He said "we're kinda almost there" - which is less bold than what you quoted - and he mentions chemicals causing depression and how some depression is addressed but not cured by antidepressants, but he never makes a statement about its cause in humans. He's not making black-and-white statements. His tone makes it clear that there are still unknowns and things work for only some people. The rest is stating the goal that we hope to reach. How is that not an accurate portrayal? IMO he takes a proper tone in how he presents it. 1
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 (edited) @swansont I've just noticed that recently (2 months ago) NdGT did make a proper video about the neuroscience of depression: Edited May 13 by Otto Kretschmer
dimreepr Posted May 13 Posted May 13 41 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: @swansont I've just noticed that recently (2 months ago) NdGT did make a proper video about the neuroscience of depression: There's more to this than that, watch this before you cast your final vote... 1
TheVat Posted May 13 Posted May 13 Could posters please post their discursive points in text and not by saying "here, click this." It's against forum rules, and it's a nuisance when you are somewhere that you can't watch videos. Usually, a clear text explanation of one's position is also much faster to read, especially when it comes to presenting facts. (I've seen videos that take half an hour to get to the point that one paragraph of text could have adequately made) Also, @Otto Kretschmer should retract his inaccurate comments about SSRI treatment and respond to my post addressing that. There is nothing wrong with critiquing pharmaceuticals used in treatment, but it needs to be done from an informed and fact-based perspective. 2
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 (edited) 23 minutes ago, TheVat said: Could posters please post their discursive points in text and not by saying "here, click this." It's against forum rules, and it's a nuisance when you are somewhere that you can't watch videos. Usually, a clear text explanation of one's position is also much faster to read, especially when it comes to presenting facts. (I've seen videos that take half an hour to get to the point that one paragraph of text could have adequately made) Also, @Otto Kretschmer should retract his inaccurate comments about SSRI treatment and respond to my post addressing that. There is nothing wrong with critiquing pharmaceuticals used in treatment, but it needs to be done from an informed and fact-based perspective. Here you have some criticism of the serotonin hypothesis of depression , from two profs of psychiatry: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/analysis-depression-probably-not-caused-chemical-imbalance-brain-new-study Neil deGrasse Tyson clearly said "we know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't and why" - which I guess isn't the case at all. Edited May 13 by Otto Kretschmer
swansont Posted May 13 Posted May 13 38 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Neil deGrasse Tyson clearly said "we know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't and why" - which I guess isn't the case at all. He also clearly said at the outset that he was talking about future knowledge - “the day will come” and “I’m imagining a future” and you are just completely ignoring these caveats and end up overstating what he claimed. Do we know of chemicals that make people depressed? Do we know of ones that don’t? Yes. Is this knowledge exhaustive? No! But he’s not claiming that it is. 1
Phi for All Posted May 13 Posted May 13 1 hour ago, TheVat said: Could posters please post their discursive points in text and not by saying "here, click this." It's against forum rules, and it's a nuisance when you are somewhere that you can't watch videos. Usually, a clear text explanation of one's position is also much faster to read, especially when it comes to presenting facts. (I've seen videos that take half an hour to get to the point that one paragraph of text could have adequately made) Also, @Otto Kretschmer should retract his inaccurate comments about SSRI treatment and respond to my post addressing that. There is nothing wrong with critiquing pharmaceuticals used in treatment, but it needs to be done from an informed and fact-based perspective. Here here, I totally agree. Posting a video as an explanation on a discussion forum is like giving someone flowers but not putting them in a vase for them. You've just given them more labor, not a gift. 1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Neil deGrasse Tyson clearly said "we know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't and why" - which I guess isn't the case at all. This is far too critical. Jesus, it was a video interview. He probably would have been more specific in print. I'm not a fan of the popular scientist approach to many subjects, but his statement was completely reasonable for the popular science crowd. We do know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't, to a great degree.
Mordred Posted May 13 Posted May 13 Lol for that matter I ignore anything stated in any form of pop media regardless of who the speaker is.
MSC Posted May 14 Posted May 14 9 hours ago, swansont said: Except that's not what he said. He said "we're kinda almost there" - which is less bold than what you quoted - and he mentions chemicals causing depression and how some depression is addressed but not cured by antidepressants, but he never makes a statement about its cause in humans. He's not making black-and-white statements. His tone makes it clear that there are still unknowns and things work for only some people. The rest is stating the goal that we hope to reach. How is that not an accurate portrayal? IMO he takes a proper tone in how he presents it. And I think the key thing is that he's versed in a lay way enough with those subjects enough to just give some choice keywords for people to know where to dig but since it's not his field, he may have read about it once or twice, but not with the same rigour or depth as within his own field of study and active areas of personal passionate interest. I still think he probably should only respond to mass shootings with compassion or not at all but I'm curious as to why @Otto Kretschmer thinks NDGT isn't a scientist just because he hasn't published as much as other scientists or what exactly the bar is supposed to be to maintain status with something that is as much an outlook as it is a profession. Science or the scientific method is just natural philosophy all grown up in some sense. Wittgenstein in some circles was considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and he barely published anything. 1 book while he was alive, Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus, 1 book after his death called Philosophical Investigationsand 1 book comprised entirely of his notes called On Certainty released in 1969. Decades after his death. In the end because of his public profile he is in a spotlight few scientists are in. That's always going to invite more people scrutinizing him. How would we all come up if under the same spotlight? Absent mistakes, foot in mouth moments, total cock ups etc? I've had brain farts and temper flares here I wouldn't want the public to scrutinize absent context or explanation or maybe just a bit of forgiveness for a bad day that we all have sometimes.
dimreepr Posted May 14 Posted May 14 12 hours ago, MSC said: And I think the key thing is that he's versed in a lay way enough with those subjects enough to just give some choice keywords for people to know where to dig but since it's not his field, he may have read about it once or twice, but not with the same rigour or depth as within his own field of study and active areas of personal passionate interest. I still think he probably should only respond to mass shootings with compassion or not at all but I'm curious as to why @Otto Kretschmer thinks NDGT isn't a scientist just because he hasn't published as much as other scientists or what exactly the bar is supposed to be to maintain status with something that is as much an outlook as it is a profession. Science or the scientific method is just natural philosophy all grown up in some sense. Wittgenstein in some circles was considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and he barely published anything. 1 book while he was alive, Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus, 1 book after his death called Philosophical Investigationsand 1 book comprised entirely of his notes called On Certainty released in 1969. Decades after his death. In the end because of his public profile he is in a spotlight few scientists are in. That's always going to invite more people scrutinizing him. How would we all come up if under the same spotlight? Absent mistakes, foot in mouth moments, total cock ups etc? I've had brain farts and temper flares here I wouldn't want the public to scrutinize absent context or explanation or maybe just a bit of forgiveness for a bad day that we all have sometimes. The thing about Wittgenstein and all the Goats of philosophy is, "I'm not worthy" is the playground of fools... The written word, or in this case the captured speach, becomes a prison of thought for those that 'want' to admire him and a target of ridicule for those that don't; neither are right. And before you report me a third time for trolling, this is just an observation not a declaration of your intelligence. IOW the ubermensche is within us all, it's circumstance that extract's it...
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 17 Author Posted May 17 (edited) By the way I've never said that NdGT is not a scientist. I had doubts as to whether he can be called a scientist but @swansont arguments convinced me that he is indeed a scientist. Edited May 17 by Otto Kretschmer
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 19 Author Posted May 19 (edited) Bump Regarding Neil deGrasse Tyson - why does a part of the internet have such a beef with him? It looks to me that a certain small percentage of people on the web dislike him. Can any legitimate criticism be levied against him or do they just hate him for the sake of hating? Personally the only criticism I can levy against is the inaccurate portrayal of Giordano Bruno's trial in Cosmos. Edited May 19 by Otto Kretschmer
swansont Posted May 19 Posted May 19 He’s a know-it-all, and some would extend that to insufferable know-it-all. Some fraction of the population gets annoyed at nit-picking, and some fraction enjoys diving into minutiae. There will always be conflicts of this sort with public figures. (I mean, some people didn’t like Mister Rogers) 1
Airbrush Posted July 1 Posted July 1 I have always enjoyed Neil's Startalk, and every Cosmos episode I saw was fantastic. I hope he keeps going. Why can't a presidential candidate be somebody smart like Neil? Because people like that don't WANT to be president.
Otto Kretschmer Posted July 9 Author Posted July 9 On 7/1/2024 at 4:20 AM, Airbrush said: I have always enjoyed Neil's Startalk, and every Cosmos episode I saw was fantastic. I hope he keeps going. Why can't a presidential candidate be somebody smart like Neil? Because people like that don't WANT to be president. NdGT is a good scientist and an excellent science popularizer but he doesn't know more about politics than an average guy off the street. Not a good fit for a POTUS.
HopDavid Posted October 12 Posted October 12 On 5/13/2024 at 4:52 AM, Otto Kretschmer said: Do you know any other situations when he was wrong? He's really, really bad at history. His most famous history flub was his Bush and Star Names story: Link. In Neil's account of Bush's 9-11 speech he had Bush bragging that his God was the God that named the stars. He called the speech "an attempt to distinguish we from they". When Bush's actual 9-11 speech was titled "Islam Is Peace". It was a call for tolerance and inclusion delivered from the Islamic Center of Washington D.C. on September 17, 2001: Link. In this case Bush was exactly the opposite of the Arab bashing demagogue Tyson described. This fiction was a standard part of Tyson's routine from 2006 to 2014. In 2014 Sean Davis of The Federalist challenged Neil to provide the speech he described. Of course he could not. Neil eventually admitted that he had confused Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. He reluctantly apologized to President Bush for mischaracterizing his quote. See The Washington Post piece: Link. ---- Another piece of wrong history is Neil's Newton timeline. Tyson has a friend asking Newton why do planets follow elliptical orbits. Newton replies "I don't know, I'll get back to you". Newton goes home, invents calculus to get the answer and comes back two weeks later to get the answer. And then turns 26. Link. It was in Principia that Newton explained elliptical orbits. And it was Edmund Halley's famous question that prompted Newton to write Principia. Halley asked the question in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. Nearly everything Neil says about Newton is wrong! History Thony Christie takes a look at Tyson's timeline: Link. ---- There are many examples of Tyson getting history wrong. He also frequently flubs math, biology, medicine, even basic physics and astronomy. If there's an interest I can list more examples. .
CharonY Posted October 12 Posted October 12 It is pretty much srandard case of an expert talking outside their area of expertise. That being said, it seems the current convention of media is moving towards non-expert talking nonsensense on all areas.
HopDavid Posted October 12 Posted October 12 3 hours ago, CharonY said: It is pretty much srandard case of an expert talking outside their area of expertise. That being said, it seems the current convention of media is moving towards non-expert talking nonsensense on all areas. Neil even makes embarrassing flubs when it comes to basic physics and astronomy. For example his claim that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the Sun Earth L2 point in earth's shadow: Link. Or his claims that rocket propellant mass goes exponentially with payload mass: Link. There are numerous other examples of Neil botching basic physics. Unless you call Neil's area of expertise hype and self promotion. He is truly a genius at that.
Recommended Posts