The false histories of Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Hop_David]

Tyson has a number of different talks that push the same narrative: religion is destructive and it stifles scientific progress.

And just about all these talks are based on invented histories.

It's noteworthy that Tyson has repeated these false histories many times, often to large audiences of self proclaimed skeptics. Often these audiences contain many well known atheists and doubters. People like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Stephen Novella, etc. "Skeptics" who seem to swallow Tyson's false histories without question. If they had noticed Tyson's errors you would think they would have quietly informed him so as to avoid further embarrassment to a prominent member of the skeptic community.

At this time I will look at two of Tyson's invented histories. Later I will add more when I have time and energy.

Bush and Star Names

Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was a standard part of his routine from November of 2006 (maybe earlier) to September 2104.

Tyson tells us Bush's 9-11 speech was "an attempt to distinguish we from they". That Bush was bragging "Our God is the God who named the Stars" evidently to set Christians above Muslims. That's just the sort of behavior we expect from Christian, Republican presidents, right? We all know they love to exploit disaster to sow division and whip up fear. Tyson then goes on to point out that most star names are Arabic. He seems to believe this refutes what he imagines to be Bush's slight against Arabic people.

Unfortunately for Tyson, Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from The Islamic Center of Washington D.C. Bush was exactly the opposite of the xenophobic demagogue Tyson portrayed.

It turns out that Tyson managed to confuse Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. See this piece from the Washington Post. However in neither of those speeches did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims.

Hamid al Ghazali: Math is the work of the devil

Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was his intro to his talk on the Islamic Golden Age.

Tyson tells us the Islamic Golden Age ended when Muslim cleric Hamid al Ghazali proclaimed that math was the work of the devil. There are a few problems with that.

1) Ghazali never said that. Ghazali actually praised the disciplines of math and science saying they are necessary for a prosperous society.

I challenged Tyson to provide the Ghazali text containing that assertion. Here is his response. It reads, in part, "...I was misleading some people by mentioning the devil at all." He was misleading anyone who believed him, that is.

2) Islamic innovation did not end in Ghazali's time. There were many mathematicians and scientists in the centuries following Ghazali. See this list. Abu al Hasan, the father of symbolic algebra, was born more than 3 centuries after Ghazali's death.

What caused the decline in Muslim innovation? Personally I believe it was because sea routes rendered land trading routes obsolete. At that time the Middle East ceased to be a trading hub where diverse cultures would meet and trade ideas. There was also the Mongol invasion and a few other things going on.

Tyson argues that if Ghazali didn't cause the decline, then why hasn't the Islamic population regained their creativity? He points out the 1.4 billion Muslims today have earned only a handful of Nobel prizes in science. Well, you can say the same thing about the 1.4 billion people living in China. Or the 1.4 billion people living in India. And these are populations that have enjoyed periods of innovation and creativity. In fact the zero and our base 10 numbering system was invented in India, not by the Arabs as Tyson falsely claims.

Just about everything Tyson says in these talks are wrong.

I will post more of Tyson's false histories when I have time.

 

[Kooky]

It should be noted that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is, first and foremost, a physicist, and so cannot really assume any kind of authority outside that specialization. "Science" after all is not an all encompassing Absolute-Correct Truth, but a collection of disparate fields with their own subject matter and their own methods which are often ideosyncratic to their particular field of study.

As such, I wouldn't treat a physicist - as acclaimed as he may be in his field, which Tyson seems to be as far as I can tell - as an authority on modern political history, any more than I would trust them with brain surgery.

 

[Nimos]

Tyson has a number of different talks that push the same narrative: religion is destructive and it stifles scientific progress.

He doesn't really get involved in this whole debate, I honestly don't think he cares all that much. This is an interview with him where he is asked about atheism etc.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Bush was exactly the opposite of the xenophobic demagogue Tyson portrayed.

He was also one of the figureheads responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. While it's helpful that you've clarified why Tyson was incorrect in his claims, intentionally or unintentionally polishing Bush's reputation is certainly not the best way to go about it. He should be summarily condemned for his war crimes, and I doubt telling those of us in the Arab world that such a person wasn't a xenophobe helps much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Hop_David]

It should be noted that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is, first and foremost, a physicist,

He has done practically zero research since his dissertation in the early 1990's. And, judging by the numerous physics errors he makes in his pop science shows, hasn't opened a textbook in that time either.

I would call him a pop science celebrity, not an astrophysicist.

and so cannot really assume any kind of authority outside that specialization.

Using false histories to push a narrative is a serious offense. Yes, it can be argued history isn't Tyson's wheelhouse. But that doesn't excuse him.

 

[Hop_David]

He was also one of the figureheads responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

I have a strong dislike for Bush. I was very much against the war in Iraq.

Does that make it okay to make false accusations against him? No.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have a strong dislike for Bush. I was very much against the war in Iraq.

Does that make it okay to make false accusations against him? No.

No disagreement there.

 

[Nimos]

He has done practically zero research since his dissertation in the early 1990's. And, judging by the numerous physics errors he makes in his pop science shows, hasn't opened a textbook in that time either.

I would call him a pop science celebrity, not an astrophysicist.

Why all the hate towards him? He doesn't claim to be Einstein or to know everything 100% with certainty. He also have said that he would like to get back doing more physics, he just happen to do something else and he is very good at making and explaining science to common folks so its interesting to listen to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It should be noted that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is, first and foremost, a physicist, and so cannot really assume any kind of authority outside that specialization. "Science" after all is not an all encompassing Absolute-Correct Truth, but a collection of disparate fields with their own subject matter and their own methods which are often ideosyncratic to their particular field of study.

As such, I wouldn't treat a physicist - as acclaimed as he may be in his field, which Tyson seems to be as far as I can tell - as an authority on modern political history, any more than I would trust them with brain surgery.

Pretty much this.
I have no great issue with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and think some of his popularisation of science has been quite a good thing. But I'm not going to him to get a tooth pulled, and I'm not going to him for a historical examination of anything.

Still, he is no more at fault in this than most humans. He simply has a wider audience, and is granted some sort of credibility based on being 'a smart guy' or something.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He was also one of the figureheads responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. While it's helpful that you've clarified why Tyson was incorrect in his claims, intentionally or unintentionally polishing Bush's reputation is certainly not the best way to go about it. He should be summarily condemned for his war crimes, and I doubt telling those of us in the Arab world that such a person wasn't a xenophobe helps much in the grand scheme of things.

I rather think the point is that people shouldn't be 'summarily condemned' and the truth matters.
If everyone held to those tenets, the war in Iraq may never have happened at all...

 

[Debater Slayer]

I rather think the point is that people shouldn't be 'summarily condemned' and the truth matters.
If everyone held to those tenets, the war in Iraq may never have happened at all...

I was talking about condemnation of Bush in the context of his war crimes. As far as I see it, there should be no defense whatsoever for what he did; he's not merely a flawed politician with some problematic views that could be excused.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was talking about condemnation of Bush in the context of his war crimes. As far as I see it, there should be no defense whatsoever for what he did; he's not merely a flawed politician with some problematic views that could be excused.

Doesn't that move away from 'summary condemnation' and more towards actually being held accountable for his actions, though?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Pretty much this.
I have no great issue with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and think some of his popularisation of science has been quite a good thing. But I'm not going to him to get a tooth pulled, and I'm not going to him for a historical examination of anything.

Still, he is no more at fault in this than most humans. He simply has a wider audience, and is granted some sort of credibility based on being 'a smart guy' or something.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Tyson myself, but I can only wonder how certain religious leaders and institutions, such as the Pope or the Catholic Church itself, would fare if more people applied to them this same level of skepticism and fact-checking.

Tyson may be a prejudiced person talking outside his field of expertise, whereas something like transphobic or anti-contraceptive official stances from churches or influential clerics actually have consequences for millions of people. Consistency matters when applying principles of critical thinking, and from what I've seen, some people only seem to care about factual accuracy when it doesn't undermine their core beliefs. (I'm speaking generally, not about the creator of this thread.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

Doesn't that move away from 'summary condemnation' and more towards actually being held accountable for his actions, though?

Not necessarily, since I think his war crimes should be summarily condemned. How he fared in other areas is a different story; I wasn't talking about summarily condemning him as in condemning everything he has ever done. That would be unreasonable.

 

[Heyo]

Tyson has a number of different talks that push the same narrative: religion is destructive and it stifles scientific progress.

And just about all these talks are based on invented histories.

It's noteworthy that Tyson has repeated these false histories many times, often to large audiences of self proclaimed skeptics. Often these audiences contain many well known atheists and doubters. People like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Stephen Novella, etc. "Skeptics" who seem to swallow Tyson's false histories without question. If they had noticed Tyson's errors you would think they would have quietly informed him so as to avoid further embarrassment to a prominent member of the skeptic community.

At this time I will look at two of Tyson's invented histories. Later I will add more when I have time and energy.

Bush and Star Names

Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was a standard part of his routine from November of 2006 (maybe earlier) to September 2104.

Tyson tells us Bush's 9-11 speech was "an attempt to distinguish we from they". That Bush was bragging "Our God is the God who named the Stars" evidently to set Christians above Muslims. That's just the sort of behavior we expect from Christian, Republican presidents, right? We all know they love to exploit disaster to sow division and whip up fear. Tyson then goes on to point out that most star names are Arabic. He seems to believe this refutes what he imagines to be Bush's slight against Arabic people.

Unfortunately for Tyson, Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from The Islamic Center of Washington D.C. Bush was exactly the opposite of the xenophobic demagogue Tyson portrayed.

It turns out that Tyson managed to confuse Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. See this piece from the Washington Post. However in neither of those speeches did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims.

Hamid al Ghazali: Math is the work of the devil

Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was his intro to his talk on the Islamic Golden Age.

Tyson tells us the Islamic Golden Age ended when Muslim cleric Hamid al Ghazali proclaimed that math was the work of the devil. There are a few problems with that.

1) Ghazali never said that. Ghazali actually praised the disciplines of math and science saying they are necessary for a prosperous society.

I challenged Tyson to provide the Ghazali text containing that assertion. Here is his response. It reads, in part, "...I was misleading some people by mentioning the devil at all." He was misleading anyone who believed him, that is.

2) Islamic innovation did not end in Ghazali's time. There were many mathematicians and scientists in the centuries following Ghazali. See this list. Abu al Hasan, the father of symbolic algebra, was born more than 3 centuries after Ghazali's death.

What caused the decline in Muslim innovation? Personally I believe it was because sea routes rendered land trading routes obsolete. At that time the Middle East ceased to be a trading hub where diverse cultures would meet and trade ideas. There was also the Mongol invasion and a few other things going on.

Tyson argues that if Ghazali didn't cause the decline, then why hasn't the Islamic population regained their creativity? He points out the 1.4 billion Muslims today have earned only a handful of Nobel prizes in science. Well, you can say the same thing about the 1.4 billion people living in China. Or the 1.4 billion people living in India. And these are populations that have enjoyed periods of innovation and creativity. In fact the zero and our base 10 numbering system was invented in India, not by the Arabs as Tyson falsely claims.

Just about everything Tyson says in these talks are wrong.

I will post more of Tyson's false histories when I have time.

After having looked into it, I concede that the claims about history are partly false and I won't use that video again to make a point.
But I will hold on to the point he is making: religion can stifle scientific progress and science is an ongoing process in which, if you stop working on it, you will fall behind.
Furthermore I argue that Islam is one of the causes that there are so few Nobel laureates from the Islamic world. China and India are (or were until recently) poor countries (relative to the west). That is not true for Arabia. The countries there are sitting on the biggest oil wells of the planet and they have managed to get rich of it. But nobody goes to Riad university to study science. China and India both have a space program, not one Islamic country has one. Students from China and India come to Europe and the US to study science, students from Islamic countries come to study engineering and economics. YEC (young Earth creationism) is prevalent in Islamic countries, in China and India ToE is taught.
And here we come back to Neil deGrasse Tyson. YEC is also prevalent in the US and Tyson fears that the evangelicals may gain too much influence and will stifle scientific progress. That process has already begun. I don't remember the exact year, (2019?) when 4 Nobel prizes went to citizen of the US - and none of those was born and raised there.

 

[exchemist]

Pretty much this.
I have no great issue with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and think some of his popularisation of science has been quite a good thing. But I'm not going to him to get a tooth pulled, and I'm not going to him for a historical examination of anything.

Still, he is no more at fault in this than most humans. He simply has a wider audience, and is granted some sort of credibility based on being 'a smart guy' or something.

The point, I think, is that he uses his authority as a scientist to peddle false ideas designed to damage religion. That is either dishonesty or, to be charitable, negligence.

If he wants to make a point about religion stifling science, a man of his background should know he needs to do his homework before selecting examples to illustrate it. By failing to do so, he becomes just another charlatan, whose claims cannot be trusted.

 

[Debater Slayer]

YEC (young Earth creationism) is prevalent in Islamic countries, in China and India ToE is taught.

This is incorrect: creationism and denial of evolution are common in most Islamic countries, but not young-Earth creationism. I have never even met a Muslim who didn't accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe or Earth, actually.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The point, I think, is that he uses his authority as a scientist to peddle false ideas designed to damage religion. That is either dishonesty or, to be charitable, negligence.

If he wants to make a point about religion stifling science, a man of his background should know he needs to do his homework before selecting examples to illustrate it. By failing to do so, he becomes just another charlatan, whose claims cannot be trusted.

I stopped listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, etc., on anything outside their respective fields of expertise. They're as prone to embracing bias and misinformation as anyone else is, and when we listen to them talk about something so completely unrelated to their main fields as religion or history is, we're usually listening to people merely expressing their opinions rather than academically authoritative knowledge.

 

[Heyo]

This is incorrect: creationism and denial of evolution are common in most Islamic countries, but not young-Earth creationism. I have never even met a Muslim who didn't accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe or Earth, actually.

I'll accept that without asking for evidence as long as we agree on the denial of evolution.

 

[exchemist]

I stopped listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, etc., on anything outside their respective fields of expertise. They're as prone to embracing bias and misinformation as anyone else is, and when we listen to them talk about something so completely unrelated to their main fields as religion or history, we're usually listening to people merely expressing their opinions rather than academically authoritative knowledge.

Quite. I object to the attempt of these people to leverage their reputations as scientists to serve another agenda, on which they are actually rather ill-qualified to speak.