Or rather, the more I see him and of him, the more my dislike grows. He likes to listen to himself talk, but I have rarely seen him actually intellectually debate or discuss a topic. He does the faces, he does voices, (basically he contributes to memes online), but he is very low brow and lowest common denominator. And sadly, in America, it is low, very low, when it comes to science. Carl Sagan he is not. In large part, I view my dislike for the new Cosmos as a failure because of him and his presentation manner, but I have no illusions that what I disliked about that show is not all deGrasse Tyson's fault. As with most documentaries and science programs in America from the last ~15 years, it is very low on the science and high on the graphics and silly reenactments, with the overall covered material fitting perhaps a middle school book on the subject in scope, if not elementary school. So this is likely not deGrasse Tyson's fault that Cosmos 2014, on Fox, produced by Seth MacFarlane, produced primarily for USA audience, turned out to be very light on the science. But add on top of that, the presentation skill of deGrasse Tyson, or lack there of, and it turned out for me to be a disaster. I really wanted to like it.
In fact, there seems to be a pattern, of people somehow related to science, not very successful in the field of actual science (if at all), somehow find their way to television and manage to sweep the audience into turning them celebrities. Bill Nye the "Science Guy", "Dr." Michu Pachu Kaki the "futurist", etc. No scientific career to speak of, but have made a prosperous career in low brow, lowest common denominator, "science discussions", seen in almost any talk show, as if called on demand to discuss any "scientific" issue or share their "opinion on the matter", as if they are masters of their field.
I assume the underlying problem is that hardcore physicists are presumably not good presenters. They would not or could not hold the stage. They are ugly, they are unclear, they are nerds, they are autistic, they are whatever Americans stereotype them to be in sitcoms and cartoons. But assuming these are true, are really the grasses and the futurists and science guys the only alternative? Surely there would be better presenters than these hacks, that would present the science in a manner that would not make a high school student facepalm every other sentence. Like Sagan, like Attenborough, like Iain Stewart, like Dawkins, and so many others. Oh wait, these are either from the past or "the rest of the world".
I don't really like you throwing him in with Kaku and Nye in all honesty. He's a fair bit above them (in the pieces he does, to clarify).
The thing is... his more 'boring' stuff like the Nasa committees, C-span stuff or the interviews he does that are not for the broad public usually aren't shown or as easy to find like the great debate and such.
He's quite good at adapting to the crowd he needs to speak to. And indeed the crowd has dumbed down quite a bit so he uses more flashyness and little skits when he talks to them. It works and that alone is worth a lot.
I've read books of Sagan,Dawkins, Hawkins,Cox,Krauss... and his books are on par with theirs (well Dawkins is slightly higher than all of them if I'm being honest, but that might be personal preference ). When he gets serious he's very accomplished, but he is a very good science communicator and will always be dragged down for that.
Bit like you see with Sagan when it comes to his focus on political statements... Tho thankfully less since that social media generation don't really know him or the original Cosmos.
The 'hardcore physicist's can hold a stage... but the interest of the public is low... it takes people like Tyson,Cox to get them to that next step. Less so with Kaku and Nye their public is more pointed towards the short flashy bits of science.
I do blame education on why the science is dumbing down and it's not an American problem alone. I've seen education being dumbed down in a few countries compared to what I got 20 years ago. I really don't see a solution and I bet in 10 years if nothing changes the level science communicators bring will be brought down even more.
Last edited by Morphineus on Tue, 31st Mar 2015 02:47; edited 2 times in total
Got to agree with Pax, Feynman was and still is my favourite science communicator. And his lectures... if only schools were fully filled with educators like them it would make a difference.
I'm on the fence about him.
A Sagan he is not. But I believe his knowledge might be close to 'fellow colleague' of Sagan and Dawkins to some degree when it comes to actual knowledge when he gets talking about it beyond fluff shows. But his quick fame from the hayden planetarium director to TV star has made him a little bit...prima donna for lack of a better term.
Hes one of the very very few scientist I can see on TV and go "He does seem to be well versed in what hes talking about when he gets actually into the more technical parts, but I would hate to hang out with him".
Not sure what it is. A little too much ego? Forced Hipness? Smug theatrics? cant put my finger on it, maybe a pinch of all those. Maybe its the lack of the humble intellect or modesty that Sagan and such convey that hes missing that rubs me the wrong way.
Like I said Im 50/50 on him myself. I can watch him, and respect him, just not the type of guy I would want to hang out with for tea.
Now For Bill Nye, hes actually a rather good and intelligent scientist. You cant put him down for his simple approach to conveying it trying to get an entire younger generation interested as a fault towards him. Countless people have stated hes the one that got them into the field of science by making it understandable and engaging for them at a young age. Hes was the 'Mr Wizard' of generation Y (Mr wizard was a science show in the 80s not sure of many people know it)
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 31st Mar 2015 02:57; edited 2 times in total
@paxsali I will tell you what my problem is and why I blame the American style of documentaries that has grown. Perhaps it is not politically correct to say American, but this is what I see. I have here on my TV several National Geographics, Discoveries, Sciences and Histories channels, and every documentary show I see that is "original", i.e. not purchased, is either some guys tweaking their cars or the same basics in presentation, following the following format: Some "watchbait" sentence spoken by a dramatic announcer accompanied by a dramatic music, followed by a loud intro, then a some "science guys" speak some very shallow look at the facts, there is some dramatic music, a reenactment with a deep announcer voice, some cheap 3D render, another "science guy" tells something dramatic and commercial break. Often descriptors such as "Most", "Best", Something-"est", "Amazing", "Fall of your chair" are used. And this formula is amazingly correct for each show on each channel. And my problem with Cosmos is that it holds there as well. I agree that Cosmos 2014 should not be attempting to "top" Cosmos 1980. But I did not this "Cosmos of today". Maybe unreasonable or irrational, but I didn't, and I really wanted to. Be honest and tell me how much you learned from it that you didn't know before. Perhaps you didn't remember the specific details or the names or exact measurements, but these you will most likely not remember on the tip of your tongue anyway after a while. Can you think of something that was eye opener for you in this show? Or did you just enjoy the visuals and perhaps some of the mannerism of deGrasse Tyson?
Like History Channel's The Universe, it was just shallow. Well produced, but shallow.
I do not have BBC-phobia, on the contrary, I have BBC-phillia.
My problem with deGrasse Tyson and the gang is that for me, they are not good communicators. If a science communicators are meant to inspire me engorge myself in science, they and their shows and interviews do the opposite and actually turn me away and I want to flip the channel or close the video I am watching.
Look at his argument style, his interruption, he sits and does faces and the crowd cheers. His ego has grown a lot over the last years. I too enjoyed the "badass" video, and was a fan for a while. But as time goes on, all I see is him making the faces and the moves and sounds, but the science is very little and far in between. Yes, even a seventh grader can shoot holes in Gravity's silly story. Perhaps not in a similarly amusing manner, but definitely can.
Not sure what it is. A little too much ego? Forced Hipness? Smug theatrics? cant put my finger on it, maybe a pinch of all those. Maybe its the lack of the humble intellect or modesty that Sagan and such convey that hes missing that rubs me the wrong way.
Like I said Im 50/50 on him myself. I can watch him, and respect him, just not the type of guy I would want to hang out with for tea.
But then, would you not say the same thing, about Dawkins or even someone like Hitchens? They appear to have at least some ego, hold themselves intellectually superior (usually are), but still I listen to them and I want to see more and more, not throw the remote at the TV.
The thing is... his more 'boring' stuff like the Nasa committees, C-span stuff or the interviews he does that are not for the broad public usually aren't shown or as easy to find like the great debate and such.
In secret, this is the kind of response I wanted to see. Could you please post some of these "boring" ones? I have a feeling I might enjoy them.
BTW, your "short flashy bits of science" comment is spot on. I'd add "shallow" as well, as that is most of their look at science. Nye's "debate" with Ken Ham. Yes, when the opposing party is that dumb and the bar set so low, even a fifth grader would appear smart. And his ability to control himself while listening to Ham is commendable, but this a great scientists does not make.
Well ego comes with the territory.
But they didn't have the overt 'hip' theatrics or general smugness about them. Sure they had it in spades when debating a topic but its conveyed more as they are passionate about knowing the argument, vs Tyson being smugly arrogant on being smart and cool if that makes sense.
For example I could never picture dawkins doing a 'Z' snap and going "mmmhmmm" in a sassy voice after countering a point. Tyson I could. Maybe its hes actually cheapening his argument with such things, vs enhancing them with them to me.
But doesn't make me like him any less as a scientist, just less as someone Id want to pal around with
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
I guess I can see where your coming from on Nye. Hes not really contributed anything directly to science itself as a legacy. But he has used what he does have to try to get kids interested in it. He truly wants all kids to interested in learning about it, and get involved in it.
And a lot of people have because of him, even if most his stuff was 'parlor tricks' and explaining why they do what they do. He himself doesn't have to be a great history changing scientist, trying to inspire kids to want to become one is a noble enough feat I think. And overall hes generally mild mannered and likable for it.
Like I said Mr Wizards World wasn't anything but a 80's TV show of after school project type science stuff basically a low budget early version of 'science guy'. But it got me curious about things at a young age.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Agree that Nye is not as bad. And he is at least somewhat modest and does not act as a celebrity. But the content he produces is still targeting very low. He is somewhat I'd put in kids channel as an afternoon education program, where his nice persona fits well, and children see something nice visually and may catch something in their brain as a trivia knowledge. The ball falls at the same speed as the apple. The ones really listening will even remember "Galileo" and when hear it again in class a few years back, will raise their hand and amaze the class with their amazing seemingly trivial knowledge of what the teacher was about to say.
But I expect a show like Cosmos to be at a level much higher, coming to a mature audience capable of having much longer attention span, with some existing knowledge of physics and ... cosmos education.
Oh yea, the new cosmos I didn't like much. The first episode seemed more like Seth and Tyson's stage to rant about religion and generally thumb their nose at it. I think like 1/3 of the whole episode was about it.
While Im pretty much in agreement with them on the viewpoint, I dont think the whole first episode of the remake of a sagan classic should be summed up as "religion is retarded, look what it did to science, lets mock it".
I think I watched parts of the 2nd and 3rd but couldnt get thru it. But Sagans I can watch over and over when it comes on at 4am on science channel.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Like this new science channel ad..It drives me up the wall. I cant stand it.
Only thing its missing is the guy wearing a TapOut Tshirt and and calling you 'bruh'.
Really does a science channel commercial need this much attitude?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 31st Mar 2015 03:43; edited 1 time in total
it comes on sci channel like 10 times a day here in the US.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
The issue with science is that in it's base it's very damp. It's facts and logic, and experiments.
But you can't really show that to public. They would loose interest immediately. If you show that wrapped in nice shiny package, they'll be like: Wow I didn't know that science was that cool! I want to become scientist too (kids will say that mostly).
What Bill Nye, Tyson and Cox are trying to do is to get that initial flame of interest burning.
A person with a little knowledge cannot appreciate the wows of pure science. When you solve some problem you have, there is an AHA! moment. You cannot show some piece of equation to public and be like: See how this is uber awesome!! It solves the problem of XX that we had for a number of years. Most ppl would be like: eh, but how will this benefit me in my 'real life'.
You need to explain the process, and all that can come from it. And that takes some flashing a bit.
Plus Cox, Tyson and Kaku are real scientists with real scientific papers. Don't know about Nye (he's probably too), but you can search arxiv database for some papers. Kaku is a string theorist, Cox works on CERN collaboration and Tyson is an astrophysicist iirc.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
It just seems like you dont belong to the target audience anymore.
I dont know these guys, since I rarely watch science TV shows. Most of the science I know, I read in books.
But when I do see "philosophers" on TV shows (like Richard David Precht in Germany), I just cant watch.
For me, thats the prostitution part. You need the popular guys to get people interested. Otherwise they would care even less.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
For me, thats the prostitution part. You need the popular guys to get people interested. Otherwise they would care even less.
exactly, look at the new generation, the spoiled first world kids nowadays who only look for instant gratification instead of investing time into anything.
among those kids there will be some who could become great scientists one day, but first you have to catch their interest, and since all they know are explosions and tits, you have to show them the explosions and tits of science.
the pure scientific method is too dry and painful for these kids, first you have to lube them up nicely with some tyson and interstellar, then insert just the tip with sagan, and then go all way in with serious debates and lectures.
The whole idea of Tyson doing the remake of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" was to "dumb it down" so people with little or no knowledge of science could see and understand some of it while turning it into a more visual experience than a cerebral one. Remember that the target audience #1 is the US population. Then they sell the series to the rest of the world.
It was never supposed to be something like "Through the Wormhole" (which, although not a hardcore physics show, is a lot more advanced with much better and more interesting content + Morgan Freeman is sooo much better at presenting with his "voice of wisdom" even though he's no scientist at all, he just presents and explains during the show) not to mention science panel debates which you basically have to hunt down somehow if you want some real science (but then you need a lot of science & math knowledge to be able to follow the discussion).
For me, when I watch something I don't understand or am intrigued, I use the wonders of technology to engorge myself in the discussed materials, and don't come back until I have at least a basic understanding of a subject. It's too much to ask from USA viewers to have to think before, during or after watching a science program.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
). When he gets serious he's very accomplished, but he is a very good science communicator and will always be dragged down for that.
Be honest and tell me how much you learned from it that you didn't know before. Perhaps you didn't remember the specific details or the names or exact measurements, but these you will most likely not remember on the tip of your tongue anyway after a while. Can you think of something that was eye opener for you in this show? Or did you just enjoy the visuals and perhaps some of the mannerism of deGrasse Tyson?
Could you please post some of these "boring" ones? I have a feeling I might enjoy them.
The voice of a god! 
