News Popular culture Science

The media romance with Neil deGrasse Tyson is off?

Spread the love

Naw. Can’t be. Look, we dunno. But …

But a site I don’t usually follow (time issues), Politico , has pretty much captured what went wrong with astronomer Neil deGrassse Tyson’s Cosmos remake, in reference to an incidental claim about a quote from a US prez:

In fairness to Tyson, it’s always easy to fall for quotes that are too good to check and to rely on fuzzy material in speeches, especially when you are playing for laughs. But when you are assuming a position of intellectual superiority based on your rigor, it’s especially important to resist these tendencies (which should be resisted, regardless).

(Here’s The Federalist’s story.) But what happened later is informative:

Tyson helpfully informed Davis, “One of our mantras in science is that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.”

Really? When it comes to presidential speeches? Just because there’s an absence of evidence that Obama said in a State of the Union address that he wants to nationalize the oil companies, it doesn’t mean he hasn’t said it?

This is such self-evident nonsense that Tyson finally tweeted at a professor who suggested he simply admit error and apologize, that he would indeed apologize — as soon as he found an appropriate medium and occasion. No one to this point had realized that Tyson lacks for mediums and occasions to express himself.

No indeed. Note this also:

his bullheaded gracelessness has extended to Tyson’s acolytes. They have worked to keep any mention of the controversy off of the Wikipedia page on Tyson, and tried to exact revenge against the Federalist on its Wikipedia page, for daring to expose a mistake by Tyson the Magnificent.

We didn’t actually need more reasons to mistrust Wikipedia on issues that excite trolls, but, if people insist.

A media person’s view (mine): Tyson’s team messed up big time on the Cosmos remake.

I’m not saying it was Tyson individually, unless someone can show me that he wrote the script himself (which would be unusual in that industry).

His story mavens grandfathered all kinds of crackpot materialist atheist causes—including nasty 16th century non-science crackpot Giordano Bruno. They just didn’t seem to get the fact that no one except them now even cares.

Which is odd, because if there is one thing Carl Sagan knew how to do, it was grab an audience about things the audience believed in. Or could believe in.

Mistake.

See also: Wikipedia’s Darwinized Lincoln was historically impossible, it turns out But that makes no difference once airheads believe it.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

By the way, Sagan on ET before ET was fashionable, or before he was:

8 Replies to “The media romance with Neil deGrasse Tyson is off?

  1. 1
    DavidD says:

    I first read about his pompous antics in the Washington Post Story. I think like Theistic Evolutionists, Tyson has been nothing more than a useful idiot to promote the cause. I posted this on the thread which no one really seemed all that interested in discussion with all the other back & forth time consuming threads. Here it is again:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-stories/#

  2. 2
    News says:

    My own view, DavidD, after a life in news, is that Tyson was trying to copy a brand that wasn’t easy to copy.

    So that was a problem to start. But not insurmountable.

    Worse, a whole bunch of career atheists climbed on board. Instead of focusing on what the viewer would want to know about what happened in cosmology since Sagan’s death (1996, lotta years to cover), they wanted to ram weird, discredited, or discreditable ideas down everyone’s throats, and causes no one believes in or cares about.

    So the public barfed.

    Now, they’ll have to force it on the tax-funded public school system instead.

  3. 3
    GilDodgen says:

    Carl Sagan: “We know enough now about the origin of life to make it appear likely that life arises naturally on the vast bulk of these planets.”

    What did they know back then about the origin of life that has all been forgotten?

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    It is the insufferable intellectual pomposity of atheists like Tyson that rubs people the wrong way. Their condescension and superiority complex are so blatant, only total humiliation will make the bunch disappear back into the woodwork they came from. Then they’ll become a mere boring footnote in the annals of science. I predict that their time in the limelight will soon come to an end.

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    I think you meant: ‘….in the annals of show business’, didn’t you, Mapou!!!

  6. 6
    Daniel King says:

    It is the insufferable intellectual pomposity of atheists like Tyson that rubs people the wrong way. Their condescension and superiority complex are so blatant, only total humiliation will make the bunch disappear back into the woodwork they came from. Then they’ll become a mere boring footnote in the annals of science. I predict that their time in the limelight will soon come to an end.

    Are you, Mapou, somehow insulated from error, unlike the rest of humanity? Or is it your particular sect that escapes that pitfall?

  7. 7
    DavidD says:

    News, “My own view, DavidD, after a life in news, is that Tyson was trying to copy a brand that wasn’t easy to copy.

    Worse, a whole bunch of career atheists climbed on board. Instead of focusing on what the viewer would want to know about what happened in cosmology since Sagan’s death (1996, lotta years to cover), they wanted to ram weird, discredited, or discreditable ideas down everyone’s throats, and causes no one believes in or cares about.”

    I agree. Sagan at least actually talked about things the public was curious about. Tyson’s whole pompous arrogant approach was to directly or subtly bash anyone else who did accept his own favorite personal religion and worldview. Very little if anything was interested in this modern series which was nothing but an attempt at what they thought was a chance at Deprogramming traditional values and indoctrination of a Secular Utopia which they wanted the public to accept was going to take over the world whether anyone likes it or not. More than anything else, from the very beginning, that made the show boring and most viewers were just disinterested.

  8. 8
    Mapou says:

    King:

    It is the insufferable intellectual pomposity of atheists like Tyson that rubs people the wrong way. Their condescension and superiority complex are so blatant, only total humiliation will make the bunch disappear back into the woodwork they came from. Then they’ll become a mere boring footnote in the annals of science. I predict that their time in the limelight will soon come to an end.

    Are you, Mapou, somehow insulated from error, unlike the rest of humanity? Or is it your particular sect that escapes that pitfall?

    Your knowledge of evolutionary psychology is impressive. You can deduce all kinds of stuff from a few words I wrote and yet you cannot detect intelligent design? What’s up with that? And why do you accuse me of faults that you, yourself, are guilty of?

Leave a Reply