• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will history remember Neil DeGrasse Tyson as a great scientist?

He needs more appearances on BIG BANG THEORY.
 
Fishking said:
I'll only remember him as a pompous windbag who's in love with himself and thinks he's so smart he can try and make a flowery response to a question without being utterly transparent.

Click to expand...


I'm not sure what the problem was with his response there. What did you find so unreasonable there?
 
artursk said:
I view him more as an educator than a scientist.

Not many educators stay in history. Some do but not many. Tyson is fantastic but he needs to publish more to create a long lasting legacy. The youtube videos showing his brilliant conversations will disappear soon enough I'm afraid, whilst 'Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey' is really just a praise for Carl Sagan.

As for pure science, he hasn't really done that much.
Click to expand...

He's a solid scientist. He may not be a Nobel Laureate. But so what? There are lots of very solid scientists, who have made some very substantive contributions, who don't necessarily have a Nobel prize.
 
He is a good scientist. But he is a great science educator and that is what he will be remembered for. Much like a previous teacher of his, Carl Sagan.
 
Fishking said:
I'll only remember him as a pompous windbag who's in love with himself and thinks he's so smart he can try and make a flowery response to a question without being utterly transparent.

Click to expand...


I think you're just mad he doesn't share whatever religious belief you do and have colored your perception accordingly.

There was nothing wrong with that answer.
 
ataraxia said:
I'm not sure what the problem was with his response there. What did you find so unreasonable there?
Click to expand...

Yeah...he should have just said, "no".
 
Deuce said:
I think you're just mad he doesn't share whatever religious belief you do and have colored your perception accordingly.

There was nothing wrong with that answer.
Click to expand...

False. That's not the issue. The issue is he should have just said "no" and not tried to be all fancy about it while being utterly transparent. He wasn't fooling anyone.
 
I think history will remember him to be a great advocate for science. He made science and the scientific approach to thinking cool for the social media generation, with their ever-decreasing attention spans. This is the generation where our next great scientists would (need to) come from, so yes, when looked at it that way, he has made an invaluable difference as an extremely effective advocate for the sciences.
 
Fishking said:
False. That's not the issue. The issue is he should have just said "no" and not tried to be all fancy about it while being utterly transparent. He wasn't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

Standard anti intellectual nonsense. "No" is a boring interview answer. "Why not" would have been the next question.
 
Fishking said:
False. That's not the issue. The issue is he should have just said "no" and not tried to be all fancy about it while being utterly transparent. He wasn't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

What do you think he was trying to fool people on? I think he was just trying to evade the question and be as tactful as he could, because he knows most of his audience still has a medieval mindset and he didn't want to offend them so directly. Fostering and developing a scientific mindset and culture in America requires a fundamental culture change and change of worldview. But this is not easy, will likely not be done very quickly (if it happens at all), and is best not approached in a very direct and confrontational way. That kind of approach tends to backfire and create even more doubling down and resistance. You get called and elitist and they stop listening. Educating the public, especially one this ignorant and backward, is hard work. But the questioner kept pushing him, and left him with very little wiggle room but to just try to state it as tactfully (or as you say, "all fancy") as he could.

Clearly, judging by how much it still managed to offend you, even that was not tactful enough.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
He's a solid scientist. He may not be a Nobel Laureate. But so what? There are lots of very solid scientists, who have made some very substantive contributions, who don't necessarily have a Nobel prize.
Click to expand...

Oh, certainly. He is definitely a solid scientist. But the question was on whether history will remember him as a great scientist. I'm afraid history tends to forget quite a few solid scientists. :)
 
Winston said:
Will history remember Neil DeGrasse Tyson as a great scientist?
Click to expand...

In terms of specific discoveries maybe not, but in terms of helping to educate and forward scientific ideas he likely will be. You might compare him to someone like Carl Sagan. Sagan didn't win a nobel prize or anything, but he certainly contributed a lot to the field of astronomy, but may be better known long term for his books, and the television series Cosmos which gave astronmy more mainstream popularity.
 
Deuce said:
Standard anti intellectual nonsense. "No" is a boring interview answer. "Why not" would have been the next question.
Click to expand...

It would have been the honest answer. It was still actually his answer, if you just shoveled all the bull**** outta the way. It's not anti-intellectual to cut through BS.
 
ataraxia said:
What do you think he was trying to fool people on? I think he was just trying to evade the question and be as tactful as he could, because he knows most of his audience still has a medieval mindset and he didn't want to offend them so directly. Fostering and developing a scientific mindset and culture in America requires a fundamental culture change and change of worldview. But this is not easy, will likely not be done very quickly (if it happens at all), and is best not approached in a very direct and confrontational way. That kind of approach tends to backfire and create even more doubling down and resistance. You get called and elitist and they stop listening. Educating the public, especially one this ignorant and backward, is hard work. But the questioner kept pushing him, and left him with very little wiggle room but to just try to state it as tactfully (or as you say, "all fancy") as he could.

Clearly, judging by how much it still managed to offend you, even that was not tactful enough.
Click to expand...

Lol...he's a bull****ter. That's not offensive, just pointing out he's not as smart as he thinks he is as it was very easy to slice through all the BS to know what his actual answer was. Also, LOL at your "medieval mindset" comment. Plenty of the best minds in the world have various beliefs in some thing or another. Your false sense of superiority is delicious, especially at your butthurt over my answer denigrating your high priest. Don't ask the question if the answer is going to be too much for you to handle.
 
Fishking said:
It would have been the honest answer. It was still actually his answer, if you just shoveled all the bull**** outta the way. It's not anti-intellectual to cut through BS.
Click to expand...

People listen to Tyson specifically because he's an eloquent speaker and gives more than just a bare minimum explanation. That's like his job. He's an educator at heart, in addition to his astrophysics work.

If he had just said "no," the person interviewing him would have asked for follow-up and he would have ended up saying the exact same thing anyway. He wasn't being dishonest, he was being thorough.

Don't go to a rock concert if you don't like loud music. Don't listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson if you don't like detailed answers to questions.
 
Deuce said:
People listen to Tyson specifically because he's an eloquent speaker and gives more than just a bare minimum explanation. That's like his job. He's an educator at heart, in addition to his astrophysics work.

If he had just said "no," the person interviewing him would have asked for follow-up and he would have ended up saying the exact same thing anyway. He wasn't being dishonest, he was being thorough.

Don't go to a rock concert if you don't like loud music. Don't listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson if you don't like detailed answers to questions.
Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't understand the totality of what he was saying. Just say you didn't understand and move on and leave it to those who actually did understand.
 
Do you think history will remember Bill Nye as a great scientist?
 
Tyson's contributions will primarily be remembered for his efforts to make scientific study more mainstream and popular. It's not a bad endeavor, but won't earn him a place like Hawking, Einstein, or Tesla.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom