Professionals are needed: your thesis is very much wrong. A quick google search states that 50% of a movie's budget goes to marketing. Why do diamond wedding rings exist? Marketing. Why is blue for boys and pink for girls (now)? Marketing. Another google search says almost 20% of the US GDP is marketing and advertising. What gets someone elected? Marketing. The world runs on B$, not merit, nor education. We exist in a brief interlude where science is valued because of a confluence of political and market systems. As the golden age of Islam has shown, it can all change on a dime. Thanks to what? Marketing.
thomas sowell has a book called visions of the anointed that explains in detail how intellectuals will assume their competency on subjects outside their intellectual purview. meaning they think im a biologist of course i can comment on economics a good example of this is noam chomsky is a linguist and yet talks about economics all the time. what makes him an expert on economics.
Scientists don’t just pull answers off the shelf from a book of answers. It will have a lagtime to produce statistics then defining what happened and try to make sense of it. Anyone who pretends to know before the situation unfolded is like a broken clock, right by accident, lucky on that occasion or even wrong or not being truthful.
They did... They spoke up for the tyrants. Science is its own religion, wrapped in an insular social club that still wants to please their masters/overseers.
Thats how society and economics works. I dont get this gov today. Its like now everyone has to be in space/ufo group have a say in anything as everyone's purchasing power parity disappears. I myself have to brush up for god knows who and why. Even though i know whatever i find out will not be sold at mass scale.
As mine pointed out, be elegant. And if you look up the term elegant, one definition is "simple". I taught stats and I can teach pretty much the "essence" of any statistic to a 10 year old. But also? A non-trivial percent of those practicing say, statistics, don't understand basic concepts. A great example is the p-value. Shocking how many totally misunderstand that...and they are researchers.
Dunno what kind of PhD you were doing, but there's not a single flying chance of me explaining the applications of rational homotopy theory to the topology of non-negatively curved Riemannian manifolds to a single soul... It's possible in principle if someone would sit there for many hundreds of hours, but that's silly.
@@geometerfpv2804 I bet Matt O'Dowd could. Your comment is literally the embodiment of the 'failure' Dr. Keating was explaining here but if you don't think Dr. Keating knows what he's talking about, maybe you'll listen to Richard Feynman? He famously said "if you can't explain a theory in a simple way understandable to kids, then you didn't understand it well." If Dr. Feynman was here right now would you look him in the face and say "but you don't understand, what I study is much more complex than any concept you've had to explain before"?
I studied Finance and i had been studied Micro and Macroeconomic in my freshman year in college. My educational advisor had been giving me quiz-like, essay-like homeworks likes explaining OMO in 5 sentences; analyzing how minimum-wage policy affects the economy and work market from Employers’ point of view and Employees’s point of view,… I didn’t understand why he made us Economist in my freshman year but when i graduated and joined the labor market, i feel grateful that he had been my Educational Advisor.
This isnt a valid point at all. Rogan has very little to do with the UFC today, he's mostly known for his podcast and standup comedy. He isn't doing talk show appearances and tours to educate people on the UFC. Everything Neil does is about "popularizing" science to the unwashed masses.
I'm in health care. My anger is when companies, people, government will not admit when they are wrong when they evidence is very self apparent. That trust is fu......ed!
I'm also in health care, and so is my wife. Just last year, well after all the Covid panic had calmed down and things felt almost "back to normal," I was diagnosed with Covid and sent home from work one day (I had sniffles but otherwise felt fine). They made my wife test for Covid as well since I had it, but she did not have symptoms and she did not test positive. Regardless, they sent her home for quarantining and the most nonsensical bullshit, they let me come back to work 5 days sooner than she was allowed to. It's all nonsense and no one in charge in any field, medical or otherwise, seems to know what they're doing anymore.
@@lxxvx you're one experience does not mean that everything else is nonsense you fucking nitwit. Working in healthcare in having an understanding of genealogy immunology and virology is not the same thing just because you work in healthcare doesn't mean you have the credentials necessary to make such ridiculous assertions
Haha. The hypothetical scenario of Neil Tyson trying to explain "gender fluidity" in a room full of scientists who AREN'T from/haven't heard of/aren't into contemporary (Wacky) Western culture/trends comes to mind. I would love to see him try and explain that with confidence in a room full of Japanese, Chinese, Indian etc physicists. Yeah we all know not
It's not that it's hard to explain complex science to the average person. It's because we live in a society where people refuse to accept science if it doesn't conform to their agenda or feelings. Remember, people now are encouraged to throw facts out of the window because it upsets them. That is the problem
Have you ever looked at Einstein's field equations? This guys analogy of the 787 is ok for most science. But the stuff that is at the very cutting edge of the universe is beyond human comprehension and we can only understand it with maths. We need science populisers for this reason. Joe Rogan is right. Some science is really really complicated and if we want kids to work on the areas we are working on we need them.
I don't really agree with that. Communication is an entirely separate skill, and you can fully understand a subject and not know how to communicate it well. You need to understand what it is you do *_and_* know how to communicate well in order to explain what you do in layman terms.
I think you mean educator. A scientist at the highest level of their industry has no obligation to explain anything to the average person who is dumber than a rock
@@NobleVagabond2552 I disagree. At some point that science will need to be APPLIED and MAINTAINED and SUPPORTED and none of that will be done by geniuses. Otherwise the science is just mental masturbation.
@josephfernandez5566 prolly depends on location, I can assure you southern California and most of the rest of the country have very shitty public education systems... society today, case in point
@josephfernandez5566 You also have to know how to teach it. For example, in high school there were two English teachers, one had the "advanced" classes, the other had... everybody else (English isn't a primary language where I live). I don't remember how the school decided which students belonged in which class, but I ended up in the "other" class. The teacher was strict, and we had some less than stellar students as far as their English skills were concerned. Now, when one of the teachers was absent the other would have a joint class with all of us. Let's say that when my teacher was gone, I quickly came to realize that the "advanced" class was dicking around and they were actually pretty bad at English compared to most students of the "other" class.
Absolutely correct - this guy has lost all my respect and I won't listen to anything he has to say anymore. His political activism has polluted his science.
right cause he cant be an astrophysicist and have a hot take i love that people like you think intelligence means your always right. its a cute little delusion. why would he even speak on biology is the real question we all know he is wrong but he tried to bring up science and he isnt an expert on the subject he brought up. just like i dont want too hear historical insights from a linguist. i dont need a biology lesson from a physicist.
He has a live and let live attitude. He didn't wanna take sides, because he takes his job serious. He doesn't wanna lose it. It sucks but thats exactly why he said what he said. I can't stand this trans trend bullshit myself.
@metalmacabre9991 NDT actually has claimed that sexual identity is not determined in the womb and therefore is a societal construct and yet had he bothered asking a real scientist who does biology for a living would have told him how wrong he was. Even a sexologisist who has a PhD in neuroscience would also have corrected him. He was simply throwing out science over wishful thinking.
People like Tyson and Nye are cultivators of interest and curiosity in a general subject many think is over their heads. In school, students get frustrated because they don't know a subject. What they need to be shown is they are not in the classroom to know it, but to learn it.
In school students get frustrated, because the subjects are explained in wrong ways. Or not explained at all and you're told to just memorize some arcane algorithm, instead of being taught how it actually works. Tyson just pushes the topic at hand in a very smug fashion, often poorly and almost always sidetracking into things completely irrelevant to the topic. He's not in to keep the interest and curiosity of the subject, but himself.
Richard Feynam nailed it when he proposed to take something that's hard to understand and try to clarify it in your mind by explaining it as if you were talking to a child.
You then run into the issue of guys like NDT just talking down to people, which is part of the whole issue to begin with. There are ways of explaining complex ideas without treating everyone who isn’t in your field like a five year old who has no basic logic or reasoning skills. NDT just treats everyone like they’re totally dumb, which turns a lot of people off. It seems that he thinks he is so mentally superior to everyone else that he feels like he must treat just about everyone as if they’re complete simpletons. That is the issue here. Of course there are a lot of idiots out there, but I think the majority of people who are even interested in the sort of topics that people like NDT discuss have a greater ability to make sense out of complex ideas than the super-elite, God-tier genius people like NDT like to think. He just has such an elitist attitude that I can’t stand.
@@BanterMaestro2-vh5vn you really don’t think he talks down to people? Have you seen him in interviews or on pods like Rogan? He constantly acts like everyone around him has no capacity to understand what he says without dumbing it down to an insulting level. I’ll grant that he’s a lot better when he is just on his own enthusiastically talking about something, but the second you put him in a room with someone interviewing him he immediately adopts this elitist attitude that is unbearable. He constantly interrupts with his pseudo-philosophical epiphanies, can’t accept criticism and tries to discredit anyone who has the nerve to disagree with him on a subject even when it’s outside his expertise, has no real interest in having intellectual debates because he knows he is always right even when he isn’t. I don’t care where he’s from, he’s just annoying in interviews and pods.
Feynman was asked to define what magnetism was, at a lecture, and he blathered on for 15 minutes, before basically saying “I could explain it..but you’re not smart enough to understand” No one ever defined it. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.
You can’t trust anyone. But if you have a range of opinions on a question, go with the person whose range of expertise includes that question, not just random RU-vidrs 👍
@@Dave_of_Mordor When we ask them to solve a problem we question them. If they are tradesmen, we go on referrals where possible. When it comes to policy that will depend on science, we question them, find areas where they differ from one another, find some common ground between them, analyse costs, and go from there.
The purpose of DEI is to allow for the installation of unqualified but entirely controllable people in positions in the "middle" that will do the bidding of those in control.
The people who complain about DEI usually are just insecure about their own short comings and need to find a boogeyman to blame for their failure. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps You'll be ok.
@@outlawthagod LOL. OR... Or... the people that advocate for DEI are those who KNOW they could never achieve success on their own merit and need constant help to keep up with the average in society. So... Yeah... You wont be OK without it. But that's OK too. :) (hint, no subs, no views, no talent, no achievements of that nearly illiterate dude in the mirror.) What you fail to see.... (DEI fan, so, not surprising) is that most people who are against DEI are those who contribute(you know, successful on their merits) that are concerned at the rising corruption and incompetence in every sector, brought to us by DEI. Finally, when you advocate for 4ft Asians to be included in the NBA at a rate 5x their proportion in society, I might be convinced you're anything other than a self serving shakedown artists who will say anything to keep the grift going. It's coming to an end my friend. Enjoy.
@@outlawthagod ahahahahahahaha... say that when you are directly impacted by it, say, a surgeon? maybe a pharmacist to make up prescriptions for you? but instead, you got someone who is not qualified and got it due to DEI. That is it simplified and it is having an effect on wider society.
That's because that is what science teaches. Gender is an amalgamation of several elements: chromosomes (those X's and Y's), anatomy (internal sex organs and external genitals), hormones (relative levels of testosterone and estrogen), psychology (self-defined gender identity), and culture (socially defined gender behaviors).
Thats because it is the problem is ppl saying they are a gender we have masculine women and femmenin men the problem is qhen thise feminine men say they are a woman, they are no more a woman than a cyborg is a human and we qill have cyborgs soon
@CrissyCrissyCris Actually, gender identity begins whilst you are still in the womb, and society does not impose identity onto someone who doesn't want it. That is a myth conjured by trans ideologues and their allies.
@init-rc7gc A biological man can never know what it is like to be a woman, no matter how far he goes with transitioning. Men should never have the term women attached to them, I refuse to use the term trans men and trans women, but I would settle on trans people. This way, I am not denying biological facts, and I am not submitting to the Brown-skirted fascists that make up the LGBTQ plus community.
Nobel Prize winners and real lab scientists are terrible popularizers. They are interesting to educated laymen and science professionals. But few of them can explain what they're doing to the general public.
"Nobel Prize winners and real lab scientists are terrible popularizers." So are black guys with 100 IQ's but that didn't stop them from hiring neil tyson.
what's that have to do with anything? Why do we need people selling science to the public? We need it because now political partisans have hijacked the word science to brand all their bullshit dogma with the word. "Men become women when they put on a dress. Trust us, it's science". "Unborn people aren't actually people. It's science". "The genders have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses. that's what science says". "Different races don't have different characteristics, , ,according to science"
One thing I've noticed is that many 'wrong' answers are awfully plausible because despite being incorrect they are curve fitted to massive slabs of data that make them look correct. A good example is a meticulously well prepared stock trading system. Back tested against massive historical data sets. The model is perfect on ALL historical data. *Still loses money*. The problem with science is we have some of these 'stacks' of self reinforcing, momentum driven incorrect areas. We always have had them and will continue to build them. Every single area of science has be torn down and had the fundamental building block ripped out and replaced again and again over the last few hundred years. At NO point is science EVER in a position where it's given the benefit of the doubt. NEVER. It has to prove itself as useful with result. The models HAVE to predict the future. Flaws, deviations, the happen then that means we either have a small error or and *entirely broken model* that just happens to look correct, because that's the best that specific scientist was capable of. Curve fitting science to data is the same mental approach as pseudo science and sadly, many scientists are operating right on the edge of pseudo science and we're giving them money and a free pass. Science influencers are awfully close to the way cult leader operate. I was listening to NGT explain something about dark matter *is* that was flat out made up. I had to unsub. Dark matter isn't a 'thing' is a gap between models and observation. It would be more correct to say that the model was wrong because it does not predict the observation. That's falsification. But to admit that the model is wrong, wrong by almost an order of magnitude would be to once again, tear physics down the the foundations. We don't want to do that because we have no replacement that isn't also equally flawed. So cult leaders run around squawking about what *is* and hand wave off the bald faced evidence that they are hand waving off the falsification the way a garage zero point energy hack my do. "We'll keep tying to make the broken model work" Add hacks and patches. Lets add some constants!
Excellent analogy of the "cult leaders". I made this comment elsewhere and I want to paste in here below your comment because I think it's another aspect of what you are talking about. I know that we're not saying the same thing exactly, but I think these phenomenon run in parallel within the community...... "I think Joe and Brian's discussion focuses on just a small aspect of the whole conversation around science as of late. My personal perception is that science, the scientific community, has not learned to recognize it's own hubris and it's own failings when it comes to the politics of research and academia. In fact, I would bet that most people in the fields of research would just flat out deny that this is even an issue at all. That to me, is just a kind of blindness and arrogance that turns a lot of people off from the scientific community. Of course, that is not true across the board, but I think it's an area of concern about which the scientific community is in complete denial because "well, those doubters just don't know. They are suffering from ignorance.""
I agree with that . Sadly, scientists nowadays have a high prestige comparable to high priests in European Middle Age You cannot be right if a high priest affirms the opposite . Moreover , you are publicly condemned . Science is the scientific method , science is not whatever a scientist says . As Feynman said , a scientist, no matter how prestigious is, is nothing without validating data. Any affirmation or "model" is nothing if it is not validated, repeatedly and by various researchers. In the comments of this video , someone laughed at other guy because this had an opinion different to the opinion of a "famed" scientist. That is just the wrong approach!
Excellent post. I personally know a researcher who has told me that any deviation from the current most popular hypotheses can invite some pretty vicious backlash from his colleagues.
@@karpabla Exactly. Yet, the 'weakness' in the scientific method is that the perspective \ knowledge of a person who builds out the falsification may be incomplete. In addition my gut instinct(+observation) is that it's entirely possible for us to build mathematical models that are workable until you hit the edge cases, and then the model breaks. Then we use that model anyway for long term projections and have to patch the holes because of error accumulation. We seem to be really good at building towers of logic on a 'mostly correct' base and ignoring the possibility that we could be thinking about things the wrong way. A small example. I remember reading about redshift\etc many decades ago. I bought in to it until the rise of dark matter. Then I started wondering... we had mad a logical jump that redshift is due only to the 'passage of time\traversal of space' and hence we can use it as litmus test on distance. This essentially built the whole expansion model as all the other factors supporting the big bang appear to be almost circumstantial by comparison. Yet, the expansion we measure with redshift infers that we have more mass to drive the mysterious expansion that's inferred by redshift quantity. If however redshift had another cause the dark matter calculation imbalance would not exist and the galaxies that should not exist problem would not be a problem. I'm not saying that 'everyone is wrong' more that we're betting the farm on redshift and it's a rocky position. We are essentially saying that a particle\wave that travels at light speed and which actually experiences no time at all in it's own reference frame 'wears down' \ 'gets tired' as a result of the passage of time as it traverses space. But without have an internal time reference the wave\particle leaves and arrives simultaneously. IMHO, we didn't throw out Newtonian physics with relativities ascent because it works well enough. I think in our lifetimes we'll see the big bang model torn down and replaced with something better. I think that all of science has this 'problem' and frankly I'm ok with it because each time we reset and start again we get closer to the truth. If you want to see how long this can go on for however look in to the resistance to plate tectonics. That idea was still being rejected in the 80's. The defenders of the old model didn't just give up because science showed them a better perspective, meaning they were not being scientific.
Well said. Dark energy / Dark matter should be regarded as no less than a total embarrassment for modern physicists. Yet it won't stop them from egotistically pretending that no one but them could possibly have any idea that might be valid. Like sure, they've failed utterly, and yet they're still the experts so you need to crawl down and lick their boots. Just ridiculous. And the reproducibility crisis is even worse & is across all fields.
@@krzysztofkowalski2816 What? I think Mountain Dew is from West Virginia Appalachian Mountains so not sure how that has anything to do with Texas. We made Dr. Pepper
intelligence is like a vessel. NDT´s is a rather small one, filled up to the top. He is firm in a lot and diligently accumulated knowledge, but he isn´t able of transfer thoughts...
Most people don't care for science. So it is very important for us to have Scientist influencers. It is not perfect for very much need. Keep the Science Popularizers!!
Teach a person how to cook and then teach them about plants and animals the biology, that also leads to geography and physics and you can also delve into the chemistry.. Teach them wood working, metal work, pottery. ...they'll be interested in taking the knowledge further. If you suddenly start talking about atoms most will not be interested cause who cares about things that doesn't effect their interests.
Most people who don't care for science, won't care to watch science influencers. Those that _do care_ can only get misguided by selfish pricks like Neil deGrasse Tyson claiming they actually know what they are talking about.
The science popularizers are more charismatic than a typical scientist, that's the point. If for nothing else, than to encourage children to go into science, which is very needed.
@@benvoiles9166 That's a good question because when I was studying biology, physics, chemistry and geology, I was told those fields were flooded. Also, grades get fixed starting in first grade, and certain children, or families get academically robbed, sometimes unanimously. I still think, in theory, we need the fields to be flooded and everybody trying to be a scientist in case someone innovates.
@@benvoiles9166 You don't need to "go into Science" but it is extremely important for everyone to understand Science, so that they can make their own informed choices about medicine, the environment et cetera. Just as it is extremely important for everyone to learn History and Law, so that we will not forever be relying on the "experts" to tell us how to think and how to act. After all, isn't that the purpose of education? (I know it's not really: it's to pigeonhole people into categories so they can be well-functioning cogs in the machine)
Back in the 80s I had an economics professor who told us "if you can't explain your theory to your wife, you don't understand your theory." It wasn't a shot against our non-economist wives. It wax a warning to us as budding economists.
Brian has a great eye for skepticism in a polite way. Love his podcasts when they debate controversial science like string theory and foreign policy and yes monetary theories.
Sam Harris is a big example of someone who hasn't done any serious science work. But regularly takes others and almost highjacks it as his own opinions.
My background is both applied math and computational neuroscience and I work in machine learning in tech. I read the dissertation of Sam Harris and think very low of UCLA to grant this. Total crap. He never worked in neuroscience as a postdoc. Kind of like these fake black belts who do a few kata's, pay $10K, and get the belt. Never fight. But Sam has a following of people with no math/science. The advisors in the show Big Bang Theory knew to block this clown. Snake oil all the way
Isaac Asimov was a science popularizer , not a scientist, long before the Internet. He admitted he didn't have "what it takes" to be a scientist, but he was able to communicate an enthusiasm and interest in science far better than the 'real' scientists. If you had no science foundations , he could open the doors, teach you the language and get you excited about the journey . Most real scientists can't do that.
He was being modest. Any scientist worth their salt...any expert in any field worth their salt...will de-emphasize their knowledge not out of false modesty or even modesty but out of a recognition of the complexity of their field, popularized in the Dunning Kruger effect.
An Asimov Quote: "Arthur Clarke says that I am first in science and second in science fiction in accordance with an agreement we have made. I say he is first in science fiction and second in science." Both of these people, regardless of what they are/were made science and science fiction more interesting, several science popularizers are worth their weight in gold provided they are actually raking in the interest of others who may not have originally been interested, typically by explaining things in an easier to understand way.
"Anyone who can't explain their position in a way that a child could understand, ... is either pulling your leg, or they don't know what they're talking about" -- Mark Twain (i think)
100% not true. Often times, someone who I'd explaining complex tasks to a child, is glossing over important processes in order to get the idea across. Try explaining all the parts that make a car run to a child, and then see if they can build a car.
The point is, if I went into detailing all those complexities to a child who has no knowledge of auto mechanics, then obviously I had no intention of helping the child understand about building cars. I would know I was simply boggling the child's mind, in order to sound impressive or whatever. DeGrasse Tyson for example, explains physics in a way people can understand, even if they never did any calculus. That shows that he actually intends to help folks understand. (granted, he does sprinkle in a bit of political propaganda now & again... apparently he has to do that in order to keep his position as a popularizer. Come to think of it, that's probably the main purpose behind the funding of popularizers. The real truth about them, HA!) @@artemiseritu
One of the things I learned in my degree is what you say here, to be a successful scientist is to be a good communicator and performer. It's all about networking and brown nosing and doing the right research for the right people who will fund you. I have professional friends who spend a good proportion of their time preparing presentations for conferences and seminars. They'd rather be researching, but that's the game. It's why I couldn't continue to PhD without paying the full tuition fee that I couldn't afford, I'm not a naturally confident person. I have PTSD and a difficult accent for people to understand, and talking in front of hundreds of people is prohibitively difficult for me. It's taken me a long time to improve that, but as a 20 year old I had no hope and no help. I was very good at the actual science, though. My analyses of data and creativity in problem solving were top of the class, often noted by professors as outstanding and insightful. I think there's something wrong with a society when one kind of person gets rewarded in most careers, but the person with the natural ability in their field is overlooked. I accept my flaws, but they aren't intellectual, and a salesman doesn't necessarily do the best analysis.
@@marieparker3822 here is a thought. Insted of looking at a narrow framework. Get out of your comfort zone and study insted of straw Manning what someone says.
Scientists (and the public in general) should be kissing the asses of science "popularists". If they weren't out there trying to make scientific concepts simple or interesting enough to get the average person's attention, then who would? Unfortunately that void is being mostly filled by grifters, bros, and people in general that don't have a clue wtf they are talking about.
From what I’ve seen scientists may have the biggest ego out of anyone, bigger than professional athletes famous people. Egos so big they will put down colleagues and not look at information just so they can be right and THE EXPERT.
@@joseribeiro9564 I never said I was offended or felt dumb when listening to them speak I was simply trying to make the point that if they want to be the top expert in there field they should be willing to consider all information and not conclude they have it right no matter what is discovered.
As an (ex) physicist I totaty disagree with the ego thing. As a programmer, I tend to believe in it to. Perhaps the greatest athlete of all time was Michael Jordan. A big part of that was his ego. He so wanted to be seen to be the best that he would practice the day after the season ended. He pushed himself because of his ego, and his response when he was embarrassed was to come back even harder. Trash talk him and he won't trash talk back. Instead he smiles and "posterizes" you. When you are in a group of egotistical scientists, knowing that if you say something stupid they will insult you and you will have a hard time recovering from that, you tend to be careful with what you say. It's Dunning-Kruger inoculation. Notice that DK became a phenomenon when "codes of conduct" came along that force people to stop insulting each other.
They’re so egotistical that they routinely gang up, ostracize, gate keep, censor and silence other scientists who test out hypotheses that don’t align with their own main stream narratives and theories. It’s a complete bastardization & mockery of what science is supposed to be.
Lets start by confirming that science isn't a trademark and it is up for intellectual debate. The problem with Tyson is he comes up with a subjective answer for something and wants his will forced upon the public without debate or due process.
The issue I have with scientist influencers such as NDT is that because of their position in the sense of science prowess compared to an average person, the average person is going to hold the scientist in a higher regard. So if that scientists one day says “therapists are no longer needed to help a depressed persons mind” that will lead to certain people taking a very potentially dangerous route.
You don't have "movie, tiktok, etc" popularizers? Never seen a late night show interviewing a celebrity huh? Ever heard of "influencer"? Same difference as a science popularizer. They're all just different words for the same effect. A person trying to get your interest in a thing.
@@justsomebeanz US Education System is a mere shell of its former self. Visit a college campus sometime. You'll likely find the dumbest people in America. Peace. 👊
I’m a lawyer not a scientist, but I have my wife (who is not a lawyer) read my draft briefs and then have her explain to me what she read. If I can write in a way that she can understand then I’ve succeeded in structuring a cogent argument.
Brian Greene stated in a recent interview on RU-vid that, after his daughter reported to him on an environmental talk given to her at school, we should "throw a spanner" in the works of our civilization. Such out-of-touch academics should be kept as far as possible from "the levers of power." Amen!
I died laughing reading this comment. Brian cox, who is undeniably way smarter than you & dedicated his entire life to research was wrong just bc you decided not to believe in climate change 😂 thank god we have people like Brian cox writing scientific papers & not you lmao
@@daltonmoore233 Kung fu masters have studied Kung fu their entire lives and got their asses kicked by beginner MMA fighters. You made the mistake people are talking about. Effort and dedication does not equate to correctness. Your sacrifice means nothing..........only measurable provable results matter.
@@rogerphelps9939 Historically, mainstream science has always been wrong, or mostly wrong about everything until new technology, new data and new ideas are brought forth. It's not a bible...........there is no truth. Only ongoing learning. If we listened to the scientists and regarded them as holders of truth at any point in history, we'd still be in medieval times.
@@daltonmoore233 Man made climate change falling into the “belief” category is the problem. Scientific hypotheses that can be falsified are no longer valid hypotheses. It the simplicity of the scientific method. CO2 as a driver of climate change can be falsified, and therefore the hypothesis is incorrect. If current levels of CO2 are too high, what would you submit is the “right” level of CO2? Given that for most of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher and life on the planet was thriving, what is your answer to that? We’ve had higher temperatures at lower CO2 and glaciations with higher CO2- how would that be squared with those that push an anti-CO2 agenda? For decades, “scientists” have said that man is the cause of global cooling, then it was warming when the cooling ended. The Earth’s average temperature has remained stable. The CO2 grift has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with controlling and reducing the Earth’s population of humans.
To be frank, I think a lot of the current science "popularizers" do a lot of damage. I can't tell you the number of times I've talked to people and they had the same misconceptions about physics because of things they'd heard from science "popularizers" that were so oversimplified that it was just plain wrong. I remember plenty of misconceptions that I, myself, had to unlearn while studying physics that I had picked up from science "popularizers."
But it did ultimately incite interest in physics no? Even if there are some misconceptions, the fact that you learned scientific topics even further and now know what the misconceptions are means that in a way the science communicators were successful in getting you interested in science.
Still way better to have some misconceptions, than to have no clue at all and therefore to believe in zodiac signs, religious fairytales how the earth was created and all other sorts of superstition.
It would add some weight to your assessments if you could point out some of the "plenty of misconceptions that I, myself, had to unlearn while studying physics that I had picked up from science "popularizers."" A few specific examples from among the plenty of misconceptions, with the popularizers who led you astray, would be good.
Tyson is the greatest science communicator of our time. He ignites sparks in people. In children. Students. He cultivates awe and wonder in people for our natural world. Thank goodness for people like Dr. Tyson.
well, that first question, why do we need science popularizers... Its pretty simple to answer. Its because science is complicated! someone comes along that can "translate" it to plain english with not just easier language but analogies, then people like it.
The fact that trans and non-binary people have existed for hundreds of years proves that it is you who don't understand human biology. Hint: It's not all about what's in your pants.
That’s just science denial with extra steps…. Why did anyone think that an area of study with 60+ years under the belt was somehow going to align with 2 year old shit takes by grifters?
@A-pi4uk Massive claim that “religion goes against human biology”. Sweeping. Might be helpful to narrow your focus a bit and talk about a specific religion/issue you have experience with unless you’re just here to troll.
@@user-vt4hd8hb4vtell that to religious apologists who are waiting for apocalypse and judgement. Some people doesn't think evolution is real and earth is flat
@@user-vt4hd8hb4v it’s more like there are agendas to push. And none of legitimate scientists want to do that jobs. So the “council” needs these influencers.
Any new idea, no matter how good it is, no matter how noble, how valuable, how many lives it will save, how much money it will make, how much love it will bring into your life, MUST BE SOLD!
Yep! And you can expect nearly everyone else to fight against whatever that is for a long, long time. "Most people are dragged into the future, while kicking and screaming about it the entire time."
I've yet to see one that's not a phony. All that I've seen make a career out of pushing false "science" and demonizing real science. They've made science a religion which it was never meant to be. Theories constantly are disproven or fixed to have continuity of laws etc yet we are now taught to trust the contemporary experts and don't dare question their authority....which is about as non scientific and anti-advantageous to the progression of better science as could be. But again this is the major downfall of instilling politics power and monies to prove theories into scientific processes as we have done with medicine, climate, and even environmental stewardship ignoring real threats like soil and water toxicity while focusing on the so many fake power measures.
Science is difficult, life is becoming increasingly difficult because of all the stimuli, so people more then ever are limiting their minds to cope with it,
Science popularisers are very much necessary, in my opinion. We shouldn't look down on them or dismiss them because they aren't 'real' scientists. Science should not be gate kept. I have been very influenced, inspired and impacted by many fantastic science popularisers in the form of books, podcasts and videos. They all had their own impact and must be appreciated.
@@electrocademyofficial893 These are Professor Tyson's university degrees. Bachelor of Arts in Physics: Harvard University (1980) Master of Arts in Astronomy: University of Texas at Austin (1983) Master of Philosophy in Astrophysics: Columbia University (1989) Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Astrophysics: Columbia University (1991) Look, a tough math degree is impressive. But to think someone with a PhD in Astrophysics wouldn't be able to pass one of your university math exam is just ridiculous. Dr. Tyson literally spent years studying physics and astrophysics, fields drenched in complex math. It's like saying an architect wouldn't understand basic carpentry because they focused on building design. Both physics and math are powerful tools, and Dr. Tyson clearly wields them effectively in his field.
@@electrocademyofficial893 These are Professor Tyson's university degrees. Bachelor of Arts in Physics: Harvard University (1980) Master of Arts in Astronomy: University of Texas at Austin (1983) Master of Philosophy in Astrophysics: Columbia University (1989) Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Astrophysics: Columbia University (1991) Look, a tough math degree is impressive. But to think someone with a PhD in Astrophysics wouldn't be able to pass even one of your university math exams is insane. Dr. Tyson literally spent years studying physics and astrophysics, fields drenched in complex math. It's like saying an architect wouldn't understand basic carpentry because they focused on building design. Both physics and math are powerful tools, and Dr. Tyson clearly wields them effectively in his field.
@@electrocademyofficial893 These are Professor Tyson's university degrees. Bachelor of Arts in Physics: Harvard University (1980) Master of Arts in Astronomy: University of Texas at Austin (1983) Master of Philosophy in Astrophysics: Columbia University (1989) Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Astrophysics: Columbia University (1991) Look, a tough math degree is impressive. But to think someone with a PhD in Astrophysics wouldn't be able to do even one of your university math exams is insane. Dr. Tyson literally spent years studying physics and astrophysics, fields drenched in complex math. It's like saying an architect wouldn't understand basic carpentry because they focused on building design. Both physics and math are powerful tools, and Dr. Tyson clearly wields them effectively in his field.
@@electrocademyofficial893 @electrocademyofficial893 These are Professor Tyson's university degrees. Bachelor of Arts in Physics: Harvard University Master of Arts in Astronomy: University of Texas at Austin Master of Philosophy in Astrophysics: Columbia University Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Astrophysics: Columbia University Look, a tough math degree is impressive. But to think someone with a PhD in Astrophysics wouldn't be able to do even one of your university math exams is insane. Dr. Tyson literally spent years studying physics and astrophysics, fields drenched in complex math. It's like saying an architect wouldn't understand basic carpentry because they focused on building design. Both physics and math are powerful tools, and Dr. Tyson clearly wields them effectively in his field.
His inability to understand that common people would have an issue. Or difficulty comprehending science and different attributes proves that we do need. These so-called science promoters. Like Neil Degrasse Tyson, you should be thanking this man instead of trying to break him down. It makes no sense and you can tell he's a hater
Having science promoters is not the issue. Carl Sagan was a great one. The specific problem is that those promoters such as Tyson and Nye are pushing an agenda, not being completely honest about science.
I have been saying this for decades. These celebrity scientists aren't the ones making the ground breaking discoveries, yet people still believe they are. Thank god someone has come out and said this.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough yourself." I know that's a misquote by Einstein, but it carries real truth. Tyson was a great example too, because he has SO MUCH ARROGANCE it's truly insane. However, he often says things that are just outright dumb. I like to call him the dumbest scientist I know lol.
The problem I have with this premise is that most new science requires foundational understanding. As a scientist, if I want to explain something new to someone, I first have to catch them up to a baseline. Then introduce the requisite new information. What science influencers do is based on a different goal. They don't want to explain an idea in a functional way. They want to explain that a new idea is out there and help people understand the importance of it by associating it with ideas that are already part of their foundational knowledge. Sometimes the goal of this is merely infotainment and sometimes it is to catch the attention of investors.
If you invented a new way to manipulate a particular metal for practical use, you don’t have to have a bunch of foundational understanding beyond high school chemistry to understand the new invention.
@@RobertMJohnson I think you overvalue the efficacy of a high school education. For a majority of people, what they learned in high school is far overshadowed by the distorted view of reality they ""learn"" on RU-vid or X.
I went to a talk where NDT was speaking. He could not answer one off the cuff question from the audience that had to do with science done within the past decade.
I have such contempt for NdGT for turning his back on science to appease the woke - he wants more TV work and the only way to do it is to pander to those afflicted by the woke mind virus
The people you said don’t exist, the popularizers, of other industries in fact exist. Marketting +any actor I would said or any famous person as we’ll involved with anything can be considered a “popularizer”
NDT has the intelligence of a rock , watch him speak on the jab and you will see that he is completely clueless. Sorry to any rocks that i might have offended with this comment 😂
I got excited for second when Brian said Gavin Newsom was a “former” governor, then I realized he just meant because joe moved out of CA. Then I was sad again.
I like that I found this video as a sponsored result. I don't normally click on sponsors because they're not what I searched for, but I had to click this one. The people need to know.
@thedropman that shows you have no brain. When I hear "wrong about covid" when you question the non scientist people like yourself, they have NO IDEA what wrong meant, abd they are repeating something they heard on fox news, nothing factual. Identifying as a horse is also not a scientific topic, it's mental health. Based on your response alone , it's clear you don't know what science is.
Speaking of which! I am glad you commented. Real question. Does this sound more like philosophy or science to you? "Illusion Belief Evidence Understanding" No seriously, I am curious as to what you think.
Good job! That is the correct answer. You passed the test. That is Plato's "philosophy of science." 🍙 Ekisia Pistis 🔥 Dianoa Noesis 🌅 Back in school I always had this hard time. It's like why is it evertime I take a science class. I end up learning something about philosophy. But when I take a philosophy class I end up learning somethinv about science? For example I take a philosophy of logic class from philosophy of science teacher. And he insists on teaching us the difference between a Aristotle's 3part syllogism and modern skepticism, how the scientific method works by "denying the antecedent" through post hoc reasoning. Why that's necessary for science. So on and so forth. Anyways I end up learning this 4 part system of logic using if then statements. Which contrasts with the 3 part Modus Ponens Modus Tollens system. Then one day. Mid course. My teacher gets dead serious and has this ice cold look in his eyes. Gleaming really. Like he's about to show us something that he knows we cannot imcomensurablby conceive of at this point in our education. And passes out a paper on Plato's Divided Line from Republic VI 509. And for years that bothered me. I spent nights thinking about. Going through the logic. 123 or 1234? Drove me nuts. Then I started reading Plato..... OHHHHHHHH MYYYYY GOD 😳 My philosophy of science teacher? Didn't just teach us the scientific method. He taught us how to think like Aristotle using Plato's method of understanding. You can see it right there in Plato's Dialouges. Where Aristotle got the motivation to codifie logic. Where he got the logic to begin with. But most importantly of all. WHY Aristotle made the Sun orbit the Earth. And not the Earth orbiting the Sun. 🫣 It had nothing to do with who was right or wrong about empirical evidence... It had to do with what's called the "saving of appearances." It's really REALLY scary shit. Anyways that's my context. Socrates's death traumatized Plato so bad. It's unbelievable. Idk
Tyson is so annoying. He's only a good communicator when he's alone. Otherwise, he talks down to people, interrupts people, rants/yells, and goes off on tangents.
The one exception to scientist popularizer as opposed to other influencers is something Bill Nye said. Do not trust us test it for yourself another words engage in actual good faith journalism. Science isn't about being right it's about leading to what actual truth is.
I went through a couple of your videos because I don't like to feel I'm judging people based on just one video (with no context). However, my initial assessment was pretty accurate. You seem upset just because your reach is not what you think you deserve, but you're not inspiring anyone, you're just expressing in a very articulate way why you feel angry about other people's way of enjoying science. The role of "popularizers" has and will never be "needed," but it's sometimes what a kid needs to start asking questions and feel excited about science. Science fiction and curiosity are the fuel for technological breakthroughs, whether you like it or not and being obviously bitter about it is not helping to change my mind. I come from a very small SA country, from a very religious family, and my way of questioning everything didn't come from my science teachers, even though they were amazing and caring. It came from Clarke, Negroponte, Bill Nye, Roddenberry, Asimov, Sagan, Beakman, El profesor Rossa (lol). These are people who turned something very important for humanity into entertainment and closed the gap between people and science. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think that idea is very unfair in both ways. First, the subject could not be old enough (or rather experienced) to understand a certain level of abstractions. Try explaining to a 10 yr old who is already in high school and probably you will succeed vs. another normal 10 yr old; life experiences also play a part on how well you understand concepts like explaining how you can know when a tree is about to fall, by sound; hearing the crack of the wood, Has a 10 yr old even heard such a think before? probably not. Second, the one explaining doesn't know how far the level of abstraction needs to go for a particular subject to understand all concepts. You can go to the inverse, adults who no matter how basic you make the explanations, they will have a hard time understanding.
@@marilynman it really isn't. If your an expert then you know your subject *so* well that you can break it down to the most simple parts that any child of normal intelligence can understand. There is very few subjects out there that cannot be broken down in this way, so if you can't, your not the 'expert' you think you are.
@@tannissar5624 Really? Explain Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity to a 1 yr old. Remember, that 1 yr old is normal in terms of intelligence for a 1 yr old. Or try to explain what a sound a tree makes before it falls.
Imagine if everyone had an interest in the science's in general as much as they're interested in sports, movie's, music, etc. Technological advancements would increase tenfold.
Having an interest in science requires thinking skills, particularly the critical variety. That is not the case for sports, movies, music etc. They are more about feelings and there can be a range of opinions of roughly equal merit. Science is not so superficial.
