Time for a little Neil deGrasse Tyson

Humans invented cows

Neil deGrasse Tyson uses the eclipse to prove climate change

This has been "Time for a little Neil deGrasse Tyson"

Niel deGrasse Tyson Actually Is Non Compos Mentis

Tyson should stay off of twitter:

" Neil deGrasse Tyson ✔ @neiltyson

Obama authorized North Korea sanctions over cyber hacking. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create unhackable systems."

This brilliant statement resulted in much levity.

Neil de Grasse Tyson: Jerk of the Week

Tyson can't suppress his Jerkness

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson sparked an Internet supernova on Christmas Day when he took to Twitter to troll Christians.

"On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world," the "Cosmos" host tweeted Thursday. "Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642."

The meteoric missive by the director of the Hayden Planetarium was retweeted more than 57,000 times and sparked plenty of vitriol.

Tyson — long despised among religious conservatives — further incensed the faithful celebrating the birth of Jesus by tweeting: "Merry Christmas to all. A Pagan holiday (BC) becomes a Religious holiday (AD). Which then becomes a Shopping holiday (USA)."

Others disputed the date Tyson cited for the birth of Newton, the father of modern physics.

"No, he didn't," tweeted @fedkusko. "According to the Gregorian calendar he was born January 4th 1643."

Is this another case of Tyson using false "facts" to attack the Other? Regardless of the factuality, it was an attack nonetheless.

But here's the thing: Newton's (classical) physics did change the world in a mechanistic fashion, but it failed to be an accurate representation of "reality". Quantum mechanics has shown that at its base reality is not so deterministic nor is it composed of mass (aka matter in Newton's time) at all; it is composed of fields, which produce apparent behavior that, in the limit of its special case, could be modeled as the mass which Newton's physics used. Einstein proved that the entire concept of "mass" is unnecessary due to the warping of space by virtue of field intensities. One might compare the utility of Newton's mass to the utility of the epicycles of Ptolemy.

In terms of completeness, Newton's physics was a 250 year flash in the pan. But it was, and is, useful if one understands its limits. His math, however, will remain useful as a universal method of approximation modeling of the visible universe. There is no question of Newton's towering intellect and the impact of his intellectual life.

But returning to Tyson: he's just an Atheist ass.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Put To Bed

This post by Robert Tracinski at the Federalist puts a final touch on Tyson's irrational claims of total rationality (common in Scientismists). The problem is not just the lying, it is the fact that Tyson claims an objective basis for statements and behaviors which are not in the least objective. And that is an ideological failure as well as rational failure, and willful blindness to boot.

"This is all summed up in a classic Neil deGrasse Tyson aphorism which, judging from his Twitter feed, is extremely popular: “If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.”

When you really think about this, the upshot is that no one who is religious is entitled to make decisions, not even about his own life—after all, what decision does not, in some small way, “affect other people”? By contrast, those who agree with Tyson assure themselves that because their belief system is “based on objective fact,” they are entitled to make decisions for other people, such as reorganizing the entire health-care system or dismantling the global economy to stop global warming.

All of which inspired me to tweet in response: “What if your belief that your belief system is based on an objective reality is not based on an objective reality?”

@neiltyson What if your belief that your belief system is based on an objective reality is not based on an objective reality?

— Robert Tracinski (@Tracinski) September 20, 2014

In this case, Tyson held a belief that was not founded in an objective reality. And it took a revealingly long time to get anyone to acknowledge that."

Just remember that Tyson, according to his fans, is smarter than you, smarter than everyone in the galaxy, no, all the multiverse. That means that he is always right. Got it? He is OmniRight.

A Defense of Neil deGrasse Tyson That Doesn't Help Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson is being defended by Tom Boggioni at alternet. Boggioni, who breathlessly refers to Tyson as "really really smart guy Neil deGrasse Tyson". Which works one of two ways for Boggioni, either he feels really really smart by association, or he appears really really stupid elitist to the rest of the world. Or both.

Boggioni's defense of Tyson consists of (a)claiming that bloggers are funded by the Koch Brothers; (b)paid to "get" Tyson; (c)comparing Tyson to Dan Rather, but an innocent Dan Rather, not the one we know; (d)that one critic works for an outfit that has Ben Domenech in it; (e)references an article which mentions neither tyson nor Lowry, who he was trashing at the time; (f)ends up admitting that his article is a smear job, in a very pompous and self-righteous attempt to claim by attachment that Tyson was smeared.

Let's see. Has Boggioni proven the innocence of Tyson? No, he never even tries. He only assaults Tyson's attackers with innuendo, false associations, false data, and pretensions of self-elitism for both himself and Tyson. But this is Alternet, after all, where logic and rationality are left at the door (if they ever existed in the Alterneters), and vitriolic elitist ideology is pumped out.

One might think that Tyson's lapses, if that's what they are, could be defended rationally. But that is not how the Left rolls. And this article demonstrates the problem with Tyson and his fans, which is that Scientism is not science; it is irrational ideology.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: An Apologetic of an Apology

Neil deGrasse Tyson has apologized, well sort of. He admits that what he said was incorrect, technically, and yet the meaning remains: we are smart: you are stupid.

"That having been said, Tyson himself has not come out of this imbroglio well. He may not have actively assembled his clique, but, as the fake George W. Bush quotation demonstrates, he does play to it at least a little. Whatever he may claim now, the intention of his tale was absolutely clear: to demonstrate for his audience who in the world was stupid and who in the world was smart, truth be damned. Unsurprisingly enough, those who had paid to come and see him speak were classed firmly in the latter category — and they loved every second of being so praised. And who wouldn’t? The world is full of performers whose sole role is to flatter their customers. That’s why we have cable news.

Now, lest I be willfully misunderstood, I should say for the record that Tyson is an excellent astronomer and that his work popularizing science is extremely valuable. As an atheist who takes an interest in such things myself, I am delighted that people care about matters scientific, even if I do think that the vast majority of those who claim to do so are unfailingly shallow and irritating in their engagement. But, however good he may be at his job, it is inescapably true that he has also become a cultural figure who plays a cultural role and who is fetishized by a subculture. Why is this so hard for his admirers to admit? Why, too, I wonder, do we find it so difficult to concede that, even for scientists, there is a real danger in becoming so loved? As we have learned over the years from musicians, movie stars, politicians, and so forth, to acquire an expectant and ardent fanbase is to run the risk of becoming a pastiche of oneself. Has Tyson? Perhaps so, yes. He’s hardly exempt.

Consider, by way of example, the text of his non-apology. Had I been charged with parodying the man, I honestly couldn’t have done a better job. Before he even gets to the issue at hand, Tyson writes:

I own a half-dozen cosmically themed vests and another 100+ cosmically themed ties. Among them, I’m more likely to be seen in only two of the vests and about a dozen of the ties, they being my favorites. In large theater performance venues, I often remove my shoes. I can move more nimbly on the stage, but I also do so as a matter of silent respect for the countless performers — singers, dancers, musicians – who have previously sanctified the stage with their artistic talents.

Later, he explains that he doesn’t really like talking to adoring crowds for fame and fortune, but that, “knowing what I know about the physical universe – and our place within it – I’d be socially irresponsible if I did not.” Okay, then!

What would he rather be doing instead?

Doing scientific research. Writing books. Playing with my kids. Having a play-date with my wife. Eating homemade very-buttery popcorn while watching a movie curled up on the couch with the family. Reading antiquarian science books. Taking notes for my next book with quill and fountain pens by candlelight. Attending Broadway plays and musicals. Listening to jazz and classical music. Drinking malted milkshakes. Cooking dinners that are fancier than the day of the week deserves. Drinking a bottle of wine that is just a little more expensive than can be realistically justified. And cooking & eating waffles for breakfast. e.g.

http://www.reddit.com/r/photoshopbattles/comments/28yjr2/neil_degrasse_tyson_making_himself_a_waffle/

That the final suggestion was illustrated with a link to a fan post on Reddit is almost too perfect for words. As for “taking notes for my next book with quill and fountain pens by candlelight,” this strikes me as a level of self-indulgence that even Ron Burgundy would have considered unseemly.

Since the contretemps broke, I have been a little confused as to why Tyson didn’t quickly regain the moral high ground by saying, flatly:

I misremembered a George W. Bush quotation. In science we are always ready to be corrected and evidence is paramount. I apologize for having got this wrong, and I’ll stop using it in my public presentations. Thank you for pointing it out.

Today, though, I am less bewildered, for the nature of the apology seems to tell us exactly why he did not just own up and move on. He can’t. He’s trapped, having become responsible for the self-esteem and self-identity of millions of adoring followers. Deep down, I bet Tyson wished he could just say, “my mistake.” Instead, he had to embed his note in an avalanche of superfluous pseudo-context; to insist that the whole affair “fascinated me greatly”; to enter into peculiar digressions about the nature of evidence and of memory; and, rather than admitting that a critic was right, to propose extraneously that “the mind is surely the next mysterious universe to be plumbed.” I find this all rather sad, I must say. I like Neil deGrasse Tyson. I’m sure he’s a nice, smart, interesting guy. His most ardent followers, however, are not. And, if his behavior over the past month is any indication, he’s been captured by them."

Tyson remains as arrogant and self-promoting as ever. He has these fans, see, and they like to think they are scientists, see, without knowing anything about either science or intellectual discipline. And that's Tyson's responsibility, isn't it? To keep them focused and feeling good about their elitist worldview, regardless of actually being stupid.

How The Left Came To Need Global Warming, Morally

Robert Tracinski makes interesting serial observations about how the Left thinks, and why Neil deGrasse Tyson fell into the ideological position of Scientific Moralizer for the Left.

I think his analysis is spot on, except that it doesn't address the additional element of groupie elitism, which is an emotional failure that is present in Leftist self-positioning. But Tracinski addresses a Leftist cultural evolution, based on pseudo-morality from Marxism (and thus capitalism hatred), through rejection of prosperity, and then into AGW as the all encompassing capitalist, prosperity-driven, lethal assault on mother earth herself. This presents AGW as the primary moral evidence for the greed of western societies, greed at the expense of the poor societies and the planet.

AGW is one facet of the Leftist, messiahist, moral-preening religion. And Tyson fits neatly into the evidence-for-the-religion slot, and into the intellectual elitist slot, no matter how phony the evidence nor corrupt intellectually. Further, the tactics which are chosen to implement their "anti-greed" religious tenet seem to make them wealthy, if they were not already.

Science Fabulist: Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Serial Fabricator?

Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson


"Neil deGrasse Tyson may be a fabulous scientist, and a consummate showman, but he’s downright terrible at accurately quoting people. Or, if you’re a “glass half full” kind of person, you might say that Neil deGrasse Tyson is pretty amazing at needlessly fabricating quotes and scenarios to showcase his own brilliance.

We’ve already established that a newspaper headline touted for years by Tyson likely doesn’t exist. We’ve also established that the exact quote he uses to bash members of Congress as being stupid also doesn’t exist. And then we established that the details within one of Tyson’s favorite anecdotes — a story of how he bravely confronted a judge about his mathematical illiteracy while serving on jury duty — seem to change every time Tyson tells the story.

In addition to those two highly questionable quotes and one highly questionable story, we now have another blatantly false quote peddled by Tyson. He has peddled this quote for years (including at a presentation on Sunday night at the Paramount Theatre in Seattle).

According to Tyson, in the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush uttered the phrase, “Our God is the God who named the stars.” According to Tyson, the president made that claim as a way of segregating radical Islam from religions like Christianity or Judaism. Here’s Tyson:"

TYSON: 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?

He says, “Our God” — of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, “Our God is the God” — he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis — “Our God is the God who named the stars.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims.

As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false. Every one! Then there’s Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis. Yep, that’s false, too. Add embarrassing biblical illiteracy to Tyson’s list of accomplishments on his CV.

There's just one thing you need to know: he's smarter than you. Or anybody. Ever.

But there's more to the "nerd" story:

All over the Internet, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s face is presented next to words that he may or may not have spoken. “Other than being a scientist,” he says in one image, “I’m not any other kind of -ist. These -ists and -isms are philosophies; they’re philosophical portfolios that people attach themselves to and then the philosophy does the thinking for you instead of you doing the thinking yourself.” Translation: All of my political and moral judgments are original, unlike those of the rubes who subscribe to ideologies, philosophies, and religious frameworks. My worldview is driven only by the data.

This is nonsense. Progressives not only believe all sorts of unscientific things — that Medicaid, the VA, and Head Start work; that school choice does not; that abortion carries with it few important medical questions; that GM crops make the world worse; that one can attribute every hurricane, wildfire, and heat wave to “climate change”; that it’s feasible that renewable energy will take over from fossil fuels anytime soon — but also do their level best to block investigation into any area that they consider too delicate. You’ll note that the typical objections to the likes of Charles Murray and Paul McHugh aren’t scientific at all, but amount to asking lamely why anybody would say something so mean.

Still, even were they paragons of inquiry, the instinct would remain insidious. The scientific process is an incredible thing, but it provides us with information rather than with ready-made political or moral judgments. Anyone who privileges one value over another (liberty over security, property rights over redistribution) is by definition indulging an “-ism.” Anyone who believes that the Declaration of Independence contains “self-evident truths” is signing on to an “ideology.” Anyone who goes to bat for any form of legal or material equality is expressing the end results of a philosophy.

Perhaps the greatest trick the Left ever managed to play was to successfully sell the ancient and ubiquitous ideas of collectivism, lightly checked political power, and a permanent technocratic class as being “new,” and the radical notions of individual liberty, limited government, and distributed power as being “reactionary.” A century ago, Woodrow Wilson complained that the checks and balances instituted by the Founders were outdated because they had been contrived before the telephone was invented. Now, we are to be liberated by the microchip and the Large Hadron Collider, and we are to have our progress assured by ostensibly disinterested analysts. I would recommend that we not fall for it. Our technology may be sparkling and our scientists may be the best in the world, but our politics are as they ever were. Marie Antoinette is no more welcome in America if she dresses up in a Battlestar Galactica uniform and self-deprecatingly joins Tumblr. Sorry, America. Science is important. But these are not the nerds you’re looking for.