Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Triggernometry

127 replies

Igneococcus · 20/09/2023 20:44

Is anybody watching? I lasted five minutes. I can't listen to more, I might have to get a wee bit drunk first, or watch it in very small doses.

Have We Lost Trust in Science? - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. Tyson studied at Harvard University, the University of Texas at Austin, ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0EqV6Tdi7w

OP posts:
FlirtsWithRhinos · 20/09/2023 22:52

Love Carl Sagan

RealityFan · 20/09/2023 23:11

Carl Sagan v Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Sir Robert Winston v Dr. Brian Cox or Dara O'Briain

Definition of no contest.

Wahinewontwheesht · 20/09/2023 23:25

I just can’t fathom why people have lost trust in science after watching that drivel. Truly baffling.

Rudderneck · 21/09/2023 00:09

He has always been a bit of a twit, and I think s somewhat stupid, despite the degree.

I remember him years back commenting about philosophy, and the philosophy of science, he made himself look moronic.

He is also a regular on CNN and usually looks like a moron there too. Some of the stuff he's come out with there on covid has been positively unscientific, in much the same way as his musings on gender.

namitynamechange · 21/09/2023 01:50

He is undoubtedly very clever (of a high IQ) and knowledgeable in his field but comes across as having a very narrow field of expertise and (crucially) is completely unable to comprehend that he isn't an expert in everything.

Even his point about gambling/casinos was off. He suggested that people spend money there because they don't understand statistics and it's an education failure. That's part of it but you can have a really good grasp of statistics and still wind up spending your life savings in the slot machines because there's a whole load of human psychology he just doesn't consider at all. Not least sunk cost fallacy. And the way psychology plays into scientific consensus and advancement is also a whole thing that's been studied but he doesn't mention that- viewing science and the scientific establishment as completely above human flaws.

namitynamechange · 21/09/2023 01:51

What did Brian Cox do? I liked him.

Rudderneck · 21/09/2023 02:06

There was a time when most scientists were also broadly educated about history, philosophy, literature, religion, and art. Some of the great scientists of the 20th century had fascinating ideas about many topics and could speak in an educated way about ideas.

I don't think that happens in most modern science degrees.

PriOn1 · 21/09/2023 03:44

The idea of leveling the playfield with some kind of handicap system sounds reasonable on the surface, until you stop to consider that keeping men and women’s sports separate, but moving some men into the women’s category, ultimately means some women lose out.

Someone needs to ask him, if we can use a handicap system in sport, why don’t ww just merge all the categories and have men and women competing together on a fair playing field?

Once men started losing out to (handicapped) women, the backlash would be huge, and maybe, just maybe, some men would get it.

Tantaijin · 21/09/2023 07:32

He is undoubtedly very clever (of a high IQ) and knowledgeable in his field but comes across as having a very narrow field of expertise and (crucially) is completely unable to comprehend that he isn't an expert in everything.

I used to like him, and loved watching ‘Cosmos’ with the dc. It was one of the reasons I chose to go back into education and study a degree/masters in physics.

However, after seeing him in situations where he did not have a script telling him exactly what to say…he really isn’t that clever. ‘Bumbling ignorant fool’ is a more accurate description.

Perhaps he just identifies as being a scientist.

Wanderingowl · 21/09/2023 08:06

I can't bring myself to watch it tbh. How did Kisin and Foster react to his claims and solutions? Especially Kisin, as he can be extremely dogged when faced with stupid statements.

RealityFan · 21/09/2023 08:12

namitynamechange · 21/09/2023 01:51

What did Brian Cox do? I liked him.

Its what he doesn't do.

ArabeIIaScott · 21/09/2023 08:13

Wanderingowl · 21/09/2023 08:06

I can't bring myself to watch it tbh. How did Kisin and Foster react to his claims and solutions? Especially Kisin, as he can be extremely dogged when faced with stupid statements.

Mostly they sat and looked on.

At one point Kisin noted that we see people's phenotype, not their chromosomes, but NdGT told him off because 'half the people here dont know what that word means'.

I think his problem is that he identifies as 'an educator ' and that for him involves presuming everyone around him is stupid.

ArabeIIaScott · 21/09/2023 08:17

Rudderneck · 21/09/2023 02:06

There was a time when most scientists were also broadly educated about history, philosophy, literature, religion, and art. Some of the great scientists of the 20th century had fascinating ideas about many topics and could speak in an educated way about ideas.

I don't think that happens in most modern science degrees.

Yep. As knowledge deepens it often tends to narrow. Nobody could really manage to keep on top of all fields now in any great detail, there's just too much to know.

namitynamechange · 21/09/2023 08:18

Yes, phenotype is a sciencey sounding word but the meaning of it is quite straightforward and easy to grasp. My 8 year old knows what it is because I told him duya conversation. Surely an actual "educator" would take the opportunity to educate rather than saying people are too stupid to get that and then talking about what height people are sitting down

Igneococcus · 21/09/2023 08:18

He used the word "educator" a lot, without actually doing much educating.

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 21/09/2023 08:21

completely unable to comprehend that he isn't an expert in everything.

That is crucial. There is the paradox that we can't know what we don't know, or the depths of our own ignorance. The unknown unknowns.

See.also 'the intelligence trap' - how clever people can talk themselves into very stupid positions.

DerekFaker · 21/09/2023 09:45

PronounsBaby · 20/09/2023 21:04

Why will it be hard to watch? I don't know much about him but thought he was quite sensible?

He's a joke on gender issues.

OldCrone · 21/09/2023 10:45

ArabeIIaScott · 21/09/2023 08:21

completely unable to comprehend that he isn't an expert in everything.

That is crucial. There is the paradox that we can't know what we don't know, or the depths of our own ignorance. The unknown unknowns.

See.also 'the intelligence trap' - how clever people can talk themselves into very stupid positions.

At the beginning of the bit about gender he says he wants to be as informed as possible before giving an opinion, and then he dives straight in and gives an opinion which is about as uninformed as it's possible to be.

Rudderneck · 21/09/2023 10:48

Tantaijin · 21/09/2023 07:32

He is undoubtedly very clever (of a high IQ) and knowledgeable in his field but comes across as having a very narrow field of expertise and (crucially) is completely unable to comprehend that he isn't an expert in everything.

I used to like him, and loved watching ‘Cosmos’ with the dc. It was one of the reasons I chose to go back into education and study a degree/masters in physics.

However, after seeing him in situations where he did not have a script telling him exactly what to say…he really isn’t that clever. ‘Bumbling ignorant fool’ is a more accurate description.

Perhaps he just identifies as being a scientist.

I think you could make a strong case that he has never really been a working scientist. He went into media and education pretty quickly out of the gate after finishing his degree, and many of his other roles have had a more administrative element. He hasn't really done anything important in terms of research.

Which is fine, I think having people with significant science education doing that kind of media work is great. But he, or maybe it's people around him, tend to give a somewhat misleading sense of his career.

Frankly in terms of public science educators, Bill Nye, who is a guy with an engineering degree, shows a lot more ability to think about issues and modify his position and learn, than Tyson does.

RomeoandJomeo · 21/09/2023 10:54

Just listened on my morning dog walk, and his patronising arrogance had wound me up well before he got onto gender. But I think the nonsense he spouted about how he was able to identify the sex of people on the subway, and simply can't understand why anyone would object to people who don't conform, highlights what we're up against... although his 'argument' very obviously came from an American perspective, it was not a million miles away from the things friends here have said to me. They see it simply as about individuals living their life, and don't want to engage with the ideological questions more broadly, so can only see me as fixating on an issue in a way that harms their lovely trans friend.

Choppysue · 21/09/2023 10:54

He's just an ego on legs who spouts shite. He's unbearable, don't rate Brian Cox either.

DerekFaker · 21/09/2023 10:59

Hmmmn.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Triggernometry
RealityFan · 21/09/2023 11:46

I think that modern day science is struggling with the whole concept of balancing a basically amoral search for knowledge with moral Qs of "is this right?"

We all know of scientists that went too far with no regard for the bigger picture, the world at large, the ramifications on people.

How many scientists in decades and centuries past ignored the very human cost of their endeavours? We've only go to look at current day womb transplants research and allowing men to bear children to see the tensions in science versus society.

And so today's generation of scientists have taken this on board, likely now swinging too far the other way. Now social justice informs all their endeavours, to the point of biasing insanity into their attitudes.

This fellow will know all about the inarguable data on male advantage in sport over women. A five year old can see it, as much as a statistician and biologist. Yet the mass hypnosis of social justice means Tyson can literally put this aside to find the least equitable outcome for women.

For someone who bemoans populist politics, he's guilty of the same, a populist for the TQ+ progessive intersectional cause, but even worse than a politician doing this, because his one and only job is to speak scientific truth, no matter how unpalatable it is to certain minorities or interest groups. Politicians are meant to lie, scientists are meant to be honest. He literally becomes a populist himself, a populist for the TQ+. Certainly not a scientist.

Fail.

Lottapianos · 21/09/2023 12:10

'I can't bring myself to watch it tbh. How did Kisin and Foster react to his claims and solutions? Especially Kisin, as he can be extremely dogged when faced with stupid statements.
Mostly they sat and looked on'

Well that's really disappointing. They're normally pretty robust on the gender woo nonsense since Posie took them to school and explained why no one is 'born in the wrong body'

Don't know if I can face watching this episode, sounds bloody awful