Page 1 of 1
Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:32 am
by kalm
I don't care you who are, this is a nice rant.
As dumb as Tyson is, his fans are even more preposterously thick, which is probably to be expected given that they’re all liberals. But the extent to which they hoover up and retweet his contradictory and brainless provocations is matched only by the hilarity of the occasional social justice car crash, in which the politics of grievance that Tyson likes to encourage comes back to bite him.
Does anyone learn anything from Tyson’s pop sci pronouncements? Who knows. But what little they do glean from his persnickety commentary on Star Wars v. Star Trek and his nitpicking about Interstellar and Gravity is called into question when his own shows make the same errors and his grasp of accuracy, sourcing and evenhandedness are shaky, to put it mildly.
There’s a silver lining to Tyson’s outsized notoriety, of course, and it’s that the internet always hurts the ones it loves: outside of reddit, and even within it, Tyson is known primarily as a meme. He has been reduced to a clutch of vacuous funny soundbites and obnoxious reaction images sprayed across image boards.
Tyson has been relegated to a place of widely-known obscurity where little is known about his ill-thought-out opinions and he’s instead celebrated for his facial expressions and attention-seeking media persona. Everyone knows his face, but few know or care to discover anything about the man or the views behind it. If you ask me, that’s a fitting tribute.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/2 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:46 am
by 89Hen
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:33 am
by CAA Flagship
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:35 am
by Ibanez
89Hen wrote:
That... Is the right answer.
My first thought was, "What does Mike Tyson have to do with this."
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:02 pm
by andy7171
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:47 am
by AshevilleApp
Ibanez wrote:89Hen wrote:
That... Is the right answer.
My first thought was, "What does Mike Tyson have to do with this."
I thought it would be about Mike as well. But I guess he really did "fade into Bolivia".
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:19 am
by CID1990
I agree with the article. He ruined Cosmos with his snarky preaching. The episode about evolution could have easily been titled "evolution is real you stupid neanderthals"
The whole episode was a waste of time, because if you already buy into evolution then it was old hat, and if you dont you were too insulted to listen to him.
Carl Sagan didnt have to resort to insulting people- he had an infectious wonder about him and he mAde the science accessible to everyone
Tyson can't carry Sagan's jock
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:53 am
by 93henfan
CID1990 wrote:I agree with the article. He ruined Cosmos with his snarky preaching. The episode about evolution could have easily been titled "evolution is real you stupid neanderthals"
The whole episode was a waste of time, because if you already buy into evolution then it was old hat, and if you dont you were too insulted to listen to him.
Carl Sagan didnt have to resort to insulting people- he had an infectious wonder about him and he mAde the science accessible to everyone
Tyson can't carry Sagan's jock
+ billions and billions
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:29 pm
by JohnStOnge
I disagree with the author because he fell into the same old misconception that all science is about publication. It's not. Science is being practiced and applied all the time without publication. This thing our culture has developed where they think publication in "peer review" journals is necessary to make something science is nonsense.
I'm not saying that as an endorsement of Tyson. I frankly don't know much about him. But that thing of dismissing him as not being a scientist because he "...hasn’t published anything of note for years" is a bunch of crap. And the following statement, "The advantage of being a celebrity scientist is that you don’t actually have to do any science. You’re exempted from the usual 'publish or perish' rules."
There are thousands and thousands of scientists who practice science every day making real world decisions that have nothing to do with the "public or perish" world of academia. They're doing experiments, gathering data, analyzing it, and using what they learn to make actual recommendations and decisions.
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:32 pm
by 93henfan
JohnStOnge wrote:
There are thousands and thousands of scientists who practice science every day making real world decisions that have nothing to do with the "public or perish" world of academia. They're doing experiments, gathering data, analyzing it, and using what they learn to make actual recommendations and decisions.
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:52 pm
by AZGrizFan
Isn't he the guy that plays the piano on those commercials?
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:00 am
by JohnStOnge
All you have to do is think about fisheries management next time you go fishing. Very little of the effort being made by those fisheries biologists trying to manage the resource is devoted to trying to publish papers. It's mostly devoted to real world decision making. And the fact that they aren't spending most of their time trying to get papers published does not mean they don't know anything about fisheries biology.
Re: Cluck on Tyson
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:08 am
by JohnStOnge
Deleted.
