I saw Tyson take such a dismissive attitude toward the threats of something like AI, specifically, AGI/ASI with the flippant “but we’d just shut it off!” kind of thing, it really grinded my gears.
However, I guess I’m falling into the same trap that so many do - expecting this guy to be all things to every aspect of anything that smacks of “science” and that’s just not a realistic expectation. I’ll stick with him on things like the re-make/update of Cosmos and ignore his random hot takes on virtually everything else. Probably also when he’s putting pen to paper vs. the hot take kind of thing on a talk show. He seems to be a frequent guest on talk shows and I remember a few being quite cringe at times.
I seem to remember a certain kind of person (usually your local WELLAXKTUALLY guy) getting butthurt about the way Sagan was being held up (in their view) as the arbiter of science or something, repeating “he’s not a real scientist he’s just a generalist” as a constant refrain.
Fuck it, who cares. If guys like this are good at getting whole generations of people interested in science, more power to them…science could use all the PR it can get in the age of Idiocracy.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I had to look up the sexual harassment stuff. That’s from 2019 and it was either cleared or never substantiated.
Even if Tyson is a bit of a lolcow on twitter, there are far worse things to be.
I’m just really suspicious of how popular it is to discredit science communicators while anti-intellectualism is so pervasive in society. It’s far easier to tear something down then it is to build something.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I find it fascinating that they’re out for blood when it comes to Tyson and Nye, but they ignore the rapist in the whitehouse…
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Who exactly is “they” in this comment?
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
mostly chuds.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
He’s more than just “a bit of a lolcow”. He discredits science by being an arsehole and inserting science into places it obviously does not belong. He’s the epitome of that stereotypical “STEM bro” that looks down upon the arts and humanities. Here’s one anecdote about him I found:
He’s also gone on “proving” that Santa can’t be real with real physics. That’s not stuff that makes people interested in science. It’s just dickish and does exactly the opposite.
Here’s an anecdote from someone who admits to overall liking him:
The claim there is that this is just one “side” of NDT and that his “real” side, when it’s allowed to show through, is a much better communicator of the wonder of science. My take is that we don’t get to see this “authentic” version of him nearly often enough to give him credit for it.
He has that bad habit that a lot of smart people (particularly physicists, for some reason) have, which is to think that because they’re smart in their one area, they must also be smart in others. He is certainly nowhere near as bad as some (looking at you, Sabine Hossenfelder), but he does have a nasty habit particularly when talking about the history of science (which, first and foremost, is history). One point that he’s particularly fond of (having repeated it regularly online as well as including it in his Cosmos remake) is the mediaeval flat earth myth.
As for the sexual misconduct allegations, they weren’t proven, but even if you take NDT entirely at his own word…it might not rise to the level of criminal misconduct, but it sure is creepy as fuck behaviour. Grabbing under someone’s dress straps? Inviting a subordinate home for a private meal?
But it’s not clear to me that we should just take him at his word. His own post defending himself, particularly the 1980s case, spends an awful lot of time attacking the character of the accuser. Whereas in the other cases he at least attempts to play it in the respectful “oh I can see how you might have gotten the wrong impression and I’m sorry” manner, here it’s just “no, you’re clearly my intellectual inferior and therefore why should anybody believe you?”
As for him being “cleared”:
In his defence, I will say, I’ve seen a lot of people accusing him of also getting the physics wrong on certain things. And at least one case of him getting into a conversation with Richard Dawkins where he supposedly got something wrong about DNA. My read on most of the situations of this sort that I’ve seen are that they’re either minor errors that are naturally going to occur in off-the-cuff discussions, or stem from an imprecision of language where the actual point he is trying to convey was totally reasonable. Maybe, given he’s a science communicator, he should try better to get these things right, and be ready to correct them in the comments or in editing when they happen and are pointed out, which is something he seems not to do. But I don’t consider this a slight on him as a person at all. Not at the scale that I’ve seen.