The false histories of Neil deGrasse Tyson

[firedragon]

'So hacked?' As in, it's truly pathetic that anyone is actually against them?

I think rather than bracing yourself too much, be a bit open minded, then you might understand what someone says.

 

[Augustus]

Terribly wrong? Set us straight!

Terribly wrong as in 18th/19th C myths no longer taken seriously by any contemporary historians. Which of his points do you think are true?

What is true:

Christianity didn't lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire, didn't usher in the Dark Ages which didn't really exist and even if they did weren't the result of Christianity anyway.

Of all classical text that exist today, none were preserved solely in the Islamic world

The church wasn't opposed to science, no one refused refused to look through Galileo's telescope, and he couldn't prove he was right which is why most scientists also rejected heliocentrism

 

[Augustus]

But magical thinking is a fundamental threat to and even more within science. And all religions (I know of) have some magic in their core beliefs. It stifles investigative thinking.

While you can certainly make a good case that this is true in modernity, it is definitely not true historically.

Religion was one of the biggest motivational factors supporting scientific investigation in the middle ages.

Early theologians believed the Book of Nature was a source of God's revelation to mankind: when read alongside sacred scripture, the "book" of nature and the study of God's creations would lead to a knowledge of God himself. The concept corresponds to the early Greek philosophical belief that man, as part of a coherent universe, is capable of understanding the design of the natural world through reason. The concept is frequently deployed by philosophers, theologians, and scholars.

The first use of the phrase is unknown. However, Galileo used the phrase, quoting Tertullian, when he wrote of how " “We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.” (5) (5) Adversus Marcionem, I, 18..

Book of Nature - Wikipedia

 

[Hop_David]

But magical thinking is a fundamental threat to and even more within science. And all religions (I know of) have some magic in their core beliefs. It stifles investigative thinking.

How so?

I can think of a lot of people with beliefs who were extremely adept at investigative thinking.

A few examples:
Ramanujan
Tesla
Newton
Kepler
Lemaître

In the words of Max Planck

“Religion and science - they do not exclude each other, as some nowadays believe or fear, but complement and condition one another.” The most historical proof of the compatibility of religion and science, even in thoroughly critical analysis, is historical fact that the greatest naturalists of all time, men like Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, were steeped in profound religiosity.”

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The whole notion of "Stick to your Wheelhouse" is, I think, incredibly asinine. Even the experts can be, and often are, wrong within their area of expertise. To think that because someone holds a degree in physics or geology that they are thus absolutely incapable of discussing history unless they somehow also become a historian is little more than a vain attempt to discredit them, rather than the (often) singular issue.

If such were the case, none of us would discuss anything outside our respective "expertise". How many of us are degree-holding Historians? Theologians? Clergy? Biologists? A hypothetical question for self-reflection, as it's excessively easy to type "I am" without evidence.

 

[Heyo]

“We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine;

And when nature contradicts doctrine, we ignore nature and shoot (or drown) the messenger. (I don't know if that tradition was founded by the Pythagoreans but it's at least that old.)

 

[Hop_David]

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.

Tyson does try to distance himself from the more vocal atheists. Tyson has criticized Dawkins for his strident tone. I believe he's trying to persuade Dawkins and other militant atheists that you can get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Yet Tyson has at least five different talks arguing religion is destructive and that it stifles innovation. Which may or may not be true. I don't mind Tyson expressing this opinion. What I do object to is that he invents false history for each and every one of his rants.

So if he doesn't really care, why does he bother to manufacture fictitious histories for his attacks on religion?

Speaking as a Catholic I much prefer Dawkins' caustic honesty over Tyson's falsehoods delivered in a warm, friendly voice.

 

[Hop_David]

The whole notion of "Stick to your Wheelhouse" is, I think, incredibly asinine. Even the experts can be, and often are, wrong within their area of expertise. To think that because someone holds a degree in physics or geology that they are thus absolutely incapable of discussing history unless they somehow also become a historian is little more than a vain attempt to discredit them, rather than the (often) singular issue.

I quite agree. But if we're unsure of something, we should preface what we say with "In my opinion..." or "I believe."

If we want to present something as a fact it behooves us to do some research. It is standard procedure to provide citations to back up a position.

A lot of people try to excuse Tyson's bad history saying it's not his area of expertise.

That is no excuse. If Tyson presents a statement as a fact, he better make sure that it's a fact. Tyson does not lift a finger to check the accuracy of his material. It would have taken him a few minutes to find Bush's actual 9-11 speech. Not once in the eight years did he lift a finger to check the accuracy of his talk.

Tyson has made many demonstrably false claims that he could have avoided if he had invested just a little time and effort researching his topic.

And the same goes for his fans. I've been told time and time again that Tyson's fictitious histories must be correct because they think Tyson is world renowned physicist. Anyone's claims should be checked. It doesn't matter if they are regarded as an authority or not. Claims should be supported by evidence.

 

[Hop_David]

And when nature contradicts doctrine, we ignore nature and shoot (or drown) the messenger. (I don't know if that tradition was founded by the Pythagoreans but it's at least that old.)

Dissenters are often silenced by those in power. And humans commit atrocities in the pursuit of power and wealth.

You think these failings are restricted to those with religious beliefs? Have you seen satellite photos of the atheist state of North Korea?

We should strive to prevent oligarchies. An oligarch can be abusive no matter what beliefs he claims to have.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I quite agree. But if we're unsure of something, we should preface what we say with "In my opinion..." or "I believe."

For clarity; how exactly is it worded in Tyson's statements?

 

[Heyo]

Dissenters are often silenced by those in power. And humans commit atrocities in the pursuit of power and wealth.

You think these failings are restricted to those with religious beliefs? Have you seen satellite photos of the atheist state of North Korea?

Tu quoque?

 

[Augustus]

And when nature contradicts doctrine, we ignore nature and shoot (or drown) the messenger. (I don't know if that tradition was founded by the Pythagoreans but it's at least that old.)

Historically, if understanding of scripture was shown to be demonstrably wrong by nature, then they could revise their understanding of scripture.

Human fallibility in interpretation was always acknowledged so it wasn't the massive problem you assume.

Even in the Galileo affair a Cardinal acknowled that if heliocentrism could be proved then they would have to accept their understanding of scripture would need to change.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So far as I know Tyson is still giving his false histories on Isaac Newton. I just a made a post on this.

There are two other of Tyson's false histories I plan to post to this forum. But I won't describe them now as I don't want to derail this thread. I am hoping to keeping these comments limited to Tyson's Bush and Star Names story and his claim that Ghazali's writings ended the Islamic Golden Age.

That wasn't so much a false history as it was a generalized claim. Isaac Newton did imply that is unsolvable. From there Tyson gave his reasoning where it can be problematic to just accept something is unsolvable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wasn't talking about religious subjects, but his glaring lack of historical knowledge cited in the OP.
One would think that somebody so uninterested in a subject matter would not talk at length about it.

The things provided haven't really been evidence of a "glaring lack of historical knowledge." Isaac Newton did believe some whacky stuff. Math being declared of the devil was problematic.
Personally, I do truly believe people just don't want to accept the fact religion can cause many problems and much damage in many areas. Tyson holds a bit of a light to this issue.

 

[Kooky]

That may even be true. As I said before, as long as it doesn't conflict with core beliefs, religion is mostly indifferent to science. Some practitioners are even in favor for it, while others are generally skeptic.
But magical thinking is a fundamental threat to and even more within science. And all religions (I know of) have some magic in their core beliefs. It stifles investigative thinking. And there is also real influence that stifles research, e.g. in genetic engineering, in parts of the world.

I would argue that magical thinking (that is, a black box understanding of natural phenomena) permeates our everyday understanding of the world, including our understanding of science (where "scientific" is often understood as "being correct" rather than "deploying one or several of a wide variety of truth-seeking methods in their respective fields of study").

And I strongly disagree that magical thinking stifles investigative thinking, because my understanding of magic is one that favors orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, and therefore is ontologically indifferent to theory; where magical thinking and science clash is in changing practice, not theory or understanding.

After what three?, four? generations? No. They either like their governments or are too apathetic to change them.

Who are "they" in this framing? The masses of rightless immigrant workers responsible for building that wealth, the small number of former feudal/tribal lords profiting from an unsustainable extraction economy, or the small native underclass that effectively lives off of their generosity?

 

[Hop_David]

Tu quoque?

Not at all. Much of the abuses inflicted by religious leaders were to maintain power.

For example during Copernicus' lifetime his heliocentric ideas were shared with the pope and and number of bishops. Copernicus never had a problem with the church for his heliocentric models. He never challenged the authority of the pope.

In contrast Galileo and Giordano Bruno were disrespectful and challenged the authority of those in power. Challenging an oligarch is dangerous regardless if the oligarch believes in God or not.

 

[Kooky]

Terribly wrong? Set us straight!

Fun fact: There are over a hundred competing theories out there claiming to be able to answer why the Roman Empire fell*, and none of them able to conclusively prove their case against all others.

Given that Harris isn't even a historian, nor seems to be particularly interested in the subject of ancient Roman history to begin with, I would find it highly unlikely that he would be familiar with most of these theories, and it's probably already a stretch to assume he would be familiar with more than one or two of them, so I don't think he has the expertise to tackle the subject with any degree of accuracy.

EDIT:
*) of course, the Roman Empire "falling" is itself a much more complex phenomenon than the pat myths perpetrated by pop historians and people lacking or refusing themselves access to in depth historical knowledge; in the East, the Roman Empire continued as a state institution (with a few notable interruptions) all the way to the 15th century AD, whereas in the West, what we modern day peeps consider a "fall" was little more than the last changing of the guards in the midst of a multiple centuries-long economic and political crisis that had seem the same state entity break apart and reform multiple times.

 

[Kooky]

In contrast Galileo and Giordano Bruno were disrespectful and challenged the authority of those in power. Challenging an oligarch is dangerous regardless if the oligarch believes in God or not.

See, for example, evolutionary genetics vs. Lysenkoism in the USSR, a state explicitly built on an atheistic ideology.

 

[Kooky]

The things provided haven't really been evidence of a "glaring lack of historical knowledge." Isaac Newton did believe some whacky stuff. Math being declared of the devil was problematic

And instead of bothering to fact check any of these claims yourself, you are you simply taking NDT's unsupported and factually wrong claims as factual truth, highlighting the OP's point about people perpetrating falsehoods with scientific authority.

 

[Heyo]

Historically, if understanding of scripture was shown to be demonstrably wrong by nature, then they could revise their understanding of scripture.

... after decades or sometimes centuries of bickering and trying to hide the truth.

Human fallibility in interpretation was always acknowledged so it wasn't the massive problem you assume.

Not always, but the typical religious answer is the same as Ham's. The only thing that could really change the churches mind was loss of income (i.e. being so divorced from reality that people stayed away from the crazies).