Opinion of Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[Antonio the Sixth]

Realisticidealist's snobbish contempt of scientific vulgarization is wrong on so many levels. Not everyone can be a scientist, obviously, but that's doesn't mean they don't deserve to be educated on a few basic notions. Personally, I must say I'm one of those people who could never study science on an academic level, but who enjoys understanding how things work in the rough sense.

[Bacon King]

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Neutral overall. I don't like his disparaging of philosophy and unlike for Mr. Morden for me it's a huge and glaring complaint. He seems to be a good scientist and a likeable guy.

What is your opinion of Sagan?

Positive. I think Sagan had a somewhat lighter touch than Tyson in a lot of ways. Although on further consideration I guess my opinion of Tyson errs on the side of positive too, so I'm voting FF.

The real scientific hero of my childhood was Gould, but that may have been just because I was more into dinosaurs than I was into space. My adulation of him probably had more influence on my views on the interrelation (or lack thereof) between religious and scientific claims than the other way around.

Interesting. (Although it's not even slightly surprising that you were thinking about NOMA as a child.)

For me, the difference between the two is enormous; listening to Sagan is like listening to poetry. Something about Tyson's approach to science has always left me a bit cold, but it wasn't until I learned about his explicit rejection of any other form of inquiry that I realized why.

Yeah, Sagan explicitly felt that philosophy was enhanced by science. He believed that a greater understanding of the natural world gave people more to theorize about in the metaphysical one.

[Simfan34]

The Christianist butthurt in this thread is hilarious.

Interesting, considering I cannot discern any in this thread.

I largely agree with what DemPGH said. Obviously he's very intelligent, but he's not some Hawking or Dyson or Bohr out making the cutting edge discoveries in the field, and I don't think he has any pretensions that he is such. People like him play a very important role, however, inspiring interest in the field and drawing in people to become scientists themselves. In an age where we all seem to agree the brightest minds in the country are being simply being drawn into the fields where they can make the most money, having a voice saying "this is interesting!" certainly cannot hurt.

But even that is probably less important than the fact that popular scientists like him are able to package the new developments and questions in a field in a way understandable to the general public. Anyone who has ever tutored someone else would know this is not hard. And people who understand what is going on in the scientific realm are going to be more likely to be aware of its importance; meaning there is going to be more funding for research- which makes the work of the leading researchers possible. If not for people like him, the public understanding and interest in scientific advancement would be considerably diminished and their willingness to spend money on things whose relevance they did not understand correspondingly so.

I don't think it's at all fair to paint him as some sort of militant atheist- I haven't really read what he's written about religion but I am under the impression he is  a rather passive agnostic if anything. I am completely unknowing of his views on philosophy but I imagine they are along the same lines. If you're looking for a atheist astrophysicist hostile to philosophy you'd be better off with Stephen Hawking.

So yeah, FF.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/the-new-scientism/

[Simfan34]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/the-new-scientism/

Woo let's go Lysenkoism!

And of course these dolts would be anti-GMO.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/the-new-scientism/

Woo let's go Lysenkoism!

And of course these dolts would be anti-GMO.

Did you read the article? They're not anti-GMO, they're opposed to the nature of Monsanto's corporate practices.

As for the first claim, obviously a large chunk (if not a majority) of scientific research now acts in the interests in private capital; what makes that so much better?

[Paul Kemp]

JACOBIN MAG

[traininthedistance]

Jacobin's point about the inherently political nature of scientific funding- and how it distorts the research agenda in ways that don't serve the pursuit of knowledge or general welfare is actually a really good one, and one that thoughtful scientists and pro-science folks would do well to keep in mind.

But that doesn't mean that the scientific method hasn't obviously proved its mettle when it comes to pursuit-of-knowledge or general welfare-type things, especially when compared to other modes of inquiry.  And it certainly doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is just a construct of the patriarchy or some such Alan Sokal-type bullcrap, and a lot of what I hear from "all science is political" types tries to insinuate from Paragraph A to this much less sane Paragraph B.  Also, the anti-GMO movement is actually really stupid* and they are probably the biggest embarrassment to "my" side there is.

*not that the specific corporate practices of Monsanto aren't shady and ridiculous and worth protesting, but that's not what most of these people go on about, is it...

...

As far as Tyson and that article outing him as an anti-philosophy philistine... I'm in general sympathetic to the idea that even scientists need philosophy, and that the Big Questions do in fact matter.  So, yeah, on this subject Tyson is in the wrong.  But that specific article was a little too dead-white-guy triumphalist in its dismissal of philosophy as a living discipline, in a way that seems a wee bit hypocritical.  Asking people to get their knowledge just from the past doesn't sit so well with me.  Yes, I know, Decartes is more accessible than Quine is more accessible than whoever's doing stuff today.  But, in the same way, Mendel is more accessible than McClintock, is... you get the idea.  Just because a lot of the low-hanging fruit's been picked (we think), and basic education focuses on the older insights, doesn't mean Knowledge is Over.

And, yes, what most folks have said about the importance of science education/advocacy/cheerleading/whatever.  That's an important job, and if Tyson is more of a popularizer than a bleeding-edge researcher... well, every field needs its popularizers.

[dead0man]

great post

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think it's at all fair to paint him as some sort of militant atheist- I haven't really read what he's written about religion but I am under the impression he is  a rather passive agnostic if anything. I am completely unknowing of his views on philosophy but I imagine they are along the same lines. If you're looking for a atheist astrophysicist hostile to philosophy you'd be better off with Stephen Hawking.

The apathetic as opposed to slavering nature of Tyson's rejection of philosophy is why I ended up gritting my teeth and voting FF. I agree with Nix that there's a clear difference between Sagan's attitude towards disciplines other than his own and Tyson's and that Tyson suffers from the comparison, but I think there's an equally clear difference between Tyson and someone like Hawking (and even then you can go far beyond Hawking, beyond even people like Richard Dawkins, to people like Sam Harris, with his attempted hostile takeover of metaethics on the behalf of his neurological interests).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

But that doesn't mean that the scientific method hasn't obviously proved its mettle when it comes to pursuit-of-knowledge or general welfare-type things, especially when compared to other modes of inquiry.  And it certainly doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is just a construct of the patriarchy or some such Alan Sokal-type bullcrap, and a lot of what I hear from "all science is political" types tries to insinuate from Paragraph A to this much less sane Paragraph B.

Well, although Jacobin is one of the best leftist magazines out there at this point (though not with the strongest opposition), I do have some issues with them, particularly their embracing of critical theory and the elements of the article that you criticized (although I disagree with you in that I don't think Jacobin comes anywhere near rejecting the objectivity of the scientific method in and of itself). Hopefully the worst of the New Left nonsense will die off soon.

[traininthedistance]

But that doesn't mean that the scientific method hasn't obviously proved its mettle when it comes to pursuit-of-knowledge or general welfare-type things, especially when compared to other modes of inquiry.  And it certainly doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is just a construct of the patriarchy or some such Alan Sokal-type bullcrap, and a lot of what I hear from "all science is political" types tries to insinuate from Paragraph A to this much less sane Paragraph B.

Well, although Jacobin is one of the best leftist magazines out there at this point (though not with the strongest opposition), I do have some issues with them, particularly their embracing of critical theory and the elements of the article that you criticized (although I disagree with you in that I don't think Jacobin comes anywhere near rejecting the objectivity of the scientific method in and of itself). Hopefully the worst of the New Left nonsense will die off soon.

They do seem to not actually "reject the objectivity of the scientific method", to their credit- but they could be a little more clear and forceful about that IMO.  Eh, maybe GMOs are just a particularly sh*tty example that makes it easy for me to assume they're going wobbly- if that article was about how we're spending money on penis pills instead of new antibiotics I'd be nodding along instead.

Jacobin is quite a bit to my left, and there are things I could pick at in most of the articles I've noticed (beyond just ideological priors stuff), but yes they do a better job than anyone else on the far-left I've seen.  And I'm actually OK with the critical theory stuff most of the time, relatively speaking- but obviously the two of us won't be agreeing on Old vs. New Left anytime soon, so.

[Deus Naturae]

Saying that a conclusion made by a group of scientists was not objectively reached does not come anywhere near to denying that the scientific method is objective or being "anti-science." That article was not attacking the scientific method at all really (though it was applying a blatantly pro-government double standard to research funding and bias).

I don't get what that article is trying to say though. Researchers are advocating amoral scientism because they approve of GMO's and various corporate practices? If you're saying they're corrupt that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with scientism. I don't think many scientists are saying "Use GMO's, screw the ethical consequences." They're saying that GMO use and the practices associated with it have good consequences. Again, if you think that they're saying those things (or not saying other things) because they're corrupt, that's one thing, but it doesn't mean they're promoting some sort of amoral, scientistic ideology. Plus, I don't get why they're blaming Tyson. Why would he start making speeches about the consequences of corporate GMO use, something that has nothing to do with what he does?

[muon2]

Saying that a conclusion made by a group of scientists was not objectively reached does not come anywhere near to denying that the scientific method is objective or being "anti-science." That article was not attacking the scientific method at all really (though it was applying a blatantly pro-government double standard to research funding and bias).

I don't get what that article is trying to say though. Researchers are advocating amoral scientism because they approve of GMO's and various corporate practices? If you're saying they're corrupt that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with scientism. I don't think many scientists are saying "Use GMO's, screw the ethical consequences." They're saying that GMO use and the practices associated with it have good consequences. Again, if you think that they're saying those things (or not saying other things) because they're corrupt, that's one thing, but it doesn't mean they're promoting some sort of amoral, scientistic ideology. Plus, I don't get why they're blaming Tyson. Why would he start making speeches about the consequences of corporate GMO use, something that has nothing to do with what he does?

It seems to me that the article is caught up in an ideal that scientists should only promote their research if they have first understood the social consequences of that research. That's like asking a software engineer who writes a social media app to first consider whether a user will employ it to inspire others to terrorism or that the code will be bought by a company who's not a good corporate citizen. Neither the software engineer nor the scientist should be expected to have the knowledge or take the time to determine the future of their work. In fact shouldn't any worker be free to have political views that might line up with a non-progressive corporation; the article seems to suggest not. I would suggest that one should then do away with a political matrix and view everything on a one-dimensional left-right axis.

The author also seems to suggest that some funding sources are more desirable than others, and that corporate funding of research is at the bottom of the list. Scientific research has a centuries old history of funding from corporate sources and other wealthy investors. If one carries the author's argument to an extreme then since the transistor was invented by scientists working for AT&T and are essential to make military drones, we should perhaps discard our tech devices.