Why has it become popular to hate Neil Degrasse Tyson?
I'm aware of the allegations, but I mean focusing on his credentials, it seems that it's kind of trendy to bash him and say he's a bad scientist. Why is that? I mostly see it from right-leaning people
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
Jeffrey K say: Scientific achievements should be judged on their science merit, not based on the credentials or personality or character of the scientist.
-
ngc7331 say: jealousy
-
William say: I think it is just the pendulum swinging the other way, as often happens. He became the very personification of science for awhile, overexposed, and he tended to put his foot in his mouth as in his Christmas tweets a year or two ago- just let people enjoy the holiday.
There are much greater popularizers and writers of astronomy who should be better known and receive more encomiums than De GrasseTyson; he was never on the same plane as Garrett Serviss, Richard Proctor, Agnes Clerke, Mary Proctor, Camille Flammarion, Patrick Moore or Robert Burnham, Jr., etc etc.
-
Ronald 7 say: Has anybody really thought about the right reason ??
Realitiy
-
az_lender say: Wikipedia lists Tyson's research publications. They are not negligible, but neither has he ever been an "important" scientist. I personally have a larger number of refereed scientific publications than Neil DeGrasse Tyson does. His prominence stems from his talent as a communicator and his directorship of the Hayden Planetarium. I have no reason to "hate" him, but the allegations of sexual misconduct have invited some people to consider his career with a more critical (jaundiced?) eye.
-
Eric say: He's just a shill. His evasive and contradictory back pedaling over the years destroyed his credibility. He's laughably godawful at explaining even the most elementary scientific concepts. He and Bill Nye are just stooges and bad jokes. His smooth talking and that smarmy condescending demeanor of his isn't going to get him out of the mess he's in now.
-
tham153 say: jealousy, right wing denial of things he has said such as climate change, pro-Russian trolls working against American interest in science (in Neil's case, specifically space exploration)
-
John say: Listen to the political discourse in America right now, and realize that "the liberals" and even more so "the libs" actually means the smart people. The idea that educated=evil is a major brick in the alt-right's wall.
-
Tom S say: Since "right-leaning people" are anti-science and anti-reality it would make sense for them to vilify those who are good at popularizing science, I have seen this in reference to others like Bill Nye also. It is a shame, but I do think it will fade with time.
-
MARK say: Because the long-standing position taken in democracies that we assume a person is innocent until proven guilty has all but disappeared. Nowadays, if somebody is accused of something it makes the front page and rent-a-mob are ready to lynch her/him/them.
-
Dan say: Honestly, most people don't know, don't care, or don't believe the allegations about Tyson.
-
rennhackrobert say: Racism
-
Jim say: People blame him for Pluto and Eris not being called "planets."
-
duke_of_urls say: Dr. Tyson is fine with me! He's a very articulate and successful educator in science, and that's sorely needed in these anti-science and anti-education times.
-
Davros say: He's a science communicator with credentials in the relevant field. That's enough for me to accept him as a mouthpiece for astronomy, at least at layperson level.
Only flat earthers and other cranks seem to paint him as the greatest of modern scientists, but then they haven't the faintest idea how academia works nor would they understand good science from bad science in the first place.
The point really is that we should leave our greatest frontier scientists to get on with the job of research. That's where we need them. If one of their peers wants to come off the coalface and talk about what they're up to with the public that's a good thing. The public are the people funding the science through their taxes and have a right to see where their investment goes and feel a part of the process. Science cannot afford to become an ivory tower with a locked door if it wishes to survive in society.
So yes, figures like deGrasse Tyson may have to sacrifice their publishing rate in order to communicate with the public, but at least they comprehend what it is they are communicating, unlike science journalists and various other hacks who repeatedly do such a wretched job of it in the press.
Being able to explain complex and sometimes counter-intuitive concepts to a lay audience IS a valuable and remarkable skill. One that other scientists especially can underestimate the importance of.
It's amazing how utterly terrible some scientists are at dealing with press and public (and having worked in TV with various academic talking heads, trust me I know how much like pulling teeth it can be).
If you've got a scientifically trained individual who can do it effortlessly, then I'd say they are potentially more valuable in that role than they are in the lab. Of course it has drawbacks: You become famous, you make yourself a target for derision and get blamed for everything your field does or says wrong. That's how it goes.
On the matter of the allegations made against Dr Tyson, I'm aware of them and would be deeply disappointed in him if they turn out true, but I will let the courts decide on that matter. They do not however do anything to invalidate the science he communicates, only the use of him as a suitable person to do that communicating. If guilty of the allegations, I suspect he'll disappear from public view pretty sharpish. Others will be there to take his place.
-
CarolOklaNola say: 1. He's a scientist. Many people bash and defame ALL scientists because of fear, self hatred, and jealousy. They project and transfer their own arrogance onto scientists.
2. He's the director if the Haydyn planetarium in NYC, the premier science museum of the USA. When the Haydyn planetarium was remodeled,he removed Pluto from the display of the planets. I am not sure if the exact timing, but he may ha e the done that before the IAU and Dr. Michael Brown demoted, killed, Pluto and Pluto became a dwarf planet.
3. He was one Carl Sagan's graduate student. Tyson was Sagan's protege. Now he he is working with Sagan's widow on a new Cosmos series. Tyson doesn't have the style and sophistication that Sagan had. Tyson talks over some people's heads.
4. The obvious reason. He's black. He didn't really earn his masters and Ph D because of favoritism, political correctness and affirmative action.
Yes, like any other scientist, he really DID earn his masters and Ph.D.
-
Will say: Probably because he was such a pompous a** about the Pluto thing. The IAU made a very stupid decision regarding the definition of planets, taking a complicated subject and claiming that two distinct categories will solve everything. But Tyson trumped the whole thing like some sort of major victory, to the point where you have to go down into the basement of his museum to see the dwarf planet display. He almost comes across as the Glenn Beck of the scientific community. His behavior almost clouds the fact that he is an intelligent person.
-
Variable 46 say: I think the point many people on the Right are trying to make is this: If the Left goes after someone on the Right based on allegations (Kavanaugh being the example du jour), then it is sheer hypocrisy to not go after people on the Left based on allegations as well. Neil DeGrasse Tyson -- who seemingly leans moderately left of center -- has been caught up in this grinder as a result.
P.S. Please report the spam responses to this question.
In the comments section the asker replies "See that's what I've been thinking. I've seen Milo Yi--whatever posting the most obnoxious things about NDT, and Milo's followers love it. If NDT was more right-leaning they'd probably be singing a different tune."
I don't know who Milo Yi is, but if you think the Right wouldn't be attacking NDT if he was a rightest, you are probably right...er, correct. However, hypocrisy does work both ways. Bill Clinton, for example, was alleged to do far worse things than NDT, and yet the Left continues to give him a "bye." Senator Cory Booker flat-out admitted -- actually, he was sort of doing some pre-#MeToo era bragging -- that he molested a drunk classmate mate when he was a teen, and the Left gives him a "bye" too.
-