The false histories of Neil deGrasse Tyson

Altfish said:

I have reservations about heaping any praise on religion though as religion was the only game in town for most things, education comes to mind also.

Click to expand...

Again this seems to assume that there were others queuing up to do the same but were being prevented by the church.

It's also not about 'heaping praise' just acknowledging a historical role seeing as most people still cling to the Conflict Thesis myth that has religion and science as implacable enemies.

It wasn't the only game in town anyway. At times rulers and wealthy people funded such things. They just did so inconsistently.

While you can certainly debate the ethics of church finances, the fact that they were wealthy enabled them to fund such things and there is no reason to assume that had the church not existed that another organisation would have appeared and been more lavish in its patronage for such things.

Think about how much it would have cost to maintain all of the monastery libraries and pay all of the copyists on the open market. How would continuity over centuries be maintained if it is based on the whims of individuals?

Who would have provided a better route for non-elites to gain an education too? Why would they have done this?

It is reasonable to note negative impacts, but assuming that things would have been better without the church requires a very big leap of faith and an avoidance of competing evidence.

Shadow Wolf said:

Explain with evidence.

Click to expand...

This whole thread is about one of them.

Bruno in Cosmos
Often references "Dark Ages" type myths

etc.

QuestioningMind said:

People speak inaccuracies all of the time... I find it interesting that the only one the OP is calling out for it is Neil.

Click to expand...

Why? People have their own interests and reasons.The point is whether or not the criticism is legitimate.

No doubt you have (legitimately) criticised 'Person A' in the past, even though you didn't criticise Person X, Y, and Z who also did the same thing.

It is impossible to call out everyone, but as an advocate for 'Reason', NDT it is reasonable to point out when he is not practicing what he preaches.

Altfish said:

I have reservations about heaping any praise on religion though as religion was the only game in town for most things, education comes to mind also.

Click to expand...

But nobody is asking you to heap praise. All you are being asked to do is to acknowledge that religion for the most part can't be shown to have held science back and in fact was instrumental in its rise, due to having the main resource, in the society of the time, of learned people with time to reflect on nature - and to it having curated the writings of earlier civilisations, notably the Greeks. The scholars were religious. The universities were religious foundations.

The church was not, in general, hostile to the study of nature. Yes, Galileo had a hard time, but Copernicus, who developed the ideas Galileo was advocating, had been encouraged in his endeavours by the previous pope. Galileo was caught up in the paranoia of the time surrounding the Reformation, in the course of which heresies were suspected everywhere.

Augustus said:

Again this seems to assume that there were others queuing up to do the same but were being prevented by the church.

It's also not about 'heaping praise' just acknowledging a historical role seeing as most people still cling to the Conflict Thesis myth that has religion and science as implacable enemies.

It wasn't the only game in town anyway. At times rulers and wealthy people funded such things. They just did so inconsistently.

While you can certainly debate the ethics of church finances, the fact that they were wealthy enabled them to fund such things and there is no reason to assume that had the church not existed that another organisation would have appeared and been more lavish in its patronage for such things.

Think about how much it would have cost to maintain all of the monastery libraries and pay all of the copyists on the open market. How would continuity over centuries be maintained if it is based on the whims of individuals?

Who would have provided a better route for non-elites to gain an education too? Why would they have done this?

It is reasonable to note negative impacts, but assuming that things would have been better without the church requires a very big leap of faith and an avoidance of competing evidence.

Click to expand...

Until you had functioning governments, apart from a few benefactors (often done to be seen in a better light so they would get to heaven) churches were the only clubs around.

exchemist said:

But nobody is asking you to heap praise. All you are being asked to do is to acknowledge that religion for the most part can't be shown to have held science back and in fact was instrumental in its rise, due to having the main resource, in the society of the time, of learned people with time to reflect on nature - and to it having curated the writings of earlier civilisations, notably the Greeks. The scholars were religious. The universities were religious foundations.

The church was not, in general, hostile to the study of nature. Yes, Galileo had a hard time, but Copernicus, who developed the ideas Galileo was advocating, had been encouraged in his endeavours by the previous pope. Galileo was caught up in the paranoia of the time surrounding the Reformation, in the course of which heresies were suspected everywhere.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but some religions today still hold science back.

Altfish said:

Until you had functioning governments, apart from a few benefactors (often done to be seen in a better light so they would get to heaven) churches were the only clubs around.

Click to expand...

That means they played and important role that would not likely have been filled otherwise, no?

Are you saying this means we shouldn't acknowledge them as playing an important role in the advancement of learning?

Augustus said:

That means they played and important role that would not likely have been filled otherwise, no?

Are you saying this means we shouldn't acknowledge them as playing an important role in the advancement of learning?

Click to expand...

No, I've agreed that. They realised they had to train people to build churches
Grief, I went to a church school. I think it was a major reason I am now an atheist.

exchemist said:

The church was not, in general, hostile to the study of nature. Yes, Galileo had a hard time, but Copernicus, who developed the ideas Galileo was advocating, had been encouraged in his endeavours by the previous pope. Galileo was caught up in the paranoia of the time surrounding the Reformation, in the course of which heresies were suspected everywhere.

Click to expand...

Galileo also could have continued to teach his (as then) unproven hypothesis as an unproven hypothesis. But despite being warned not to, he insisted it was a fact (which was unscientific at that point).

He was also a bit of a ****, and went out of his way to rub powerful people up the wrong way in a time when this was not a particularly wise move whether they were religious or secular leaders.

He could have very easily avoided his fate with a little tact and foresight while continuing to make a case for heliocentrism.

Altfish said:

No, I've agreed that. They realised they had to train people to build churches

Click to expand...

They facilitated education in a lot more than that, and preserved a great deal of classical scholarship.

But it doesn't really matter what their motivations were really. The main thing is that up to the 19th C, religion and religious institutions were a considerable net contributor to scientific advancement in Europe.

I agree that the role in modernity is different and that there is a certainly a case to be made that the opposite is true.

Altfish said:

I'm sorry, but some religions today still hold science back.

Click to expand...

No one here disputes that. But it is a quite different point from the general allegations against religion made by the likes of Tyson.

TagliatelliMonster said:

He's a passionate person and like all humans, whenever he picks up on something that fits his worldview and / or confirms his a priori assumptions, he'll tend to run with it. We all do it.

Click to expand...

Indeed. We all suffer from confirmation bias. We all tend to swallow B.S. if it seems to confirm what we want to believe.

Neil frequently gives excellent advice on how to mitigate this human failing -- Make a habit of challenging all claims and assumptions to see if they are supported by evidence.

Unfortunately Neil as well as his fans consistently fail to follow their own advice. They are too busy trying to pull motes from the eyes of their neighbors.

Neil likes to say that scientific literacy empowers you to know when someone is full of ****. And here we have the spectacle of Neil serving "skeptics" a 4 course meal of B.S.. And prominent skeptics devouring it without question. Year after year after year. Courtesy of Tyson all these so called skeptics have bull **** stains on their bibs. Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Sam Harris, Stephen Novella, and the list just goes on and on and on.

The lesson that Neil is teaching us is that we all suffer from confirmation bias. Not just the alt right. But also those who pay lip service to science and skepticism.

TagliatelliMonster said:

The important thing is to correct your mistakes when they are pointed out and demonstrated to being mistakes.
That's what learning is.

Click to expand...

Tyson did not have much choice but to admit his Bush and Star Names story was a screw up. It was very obvious he was wrong and the story was starting to get attention in main stream news outlets.

Other than a brief admission on my obscure blog, I have yet to see Tyson acknowledge his Ghazali story is fiction.
For at least 7 years Thony Christie and other historians have been attempting to give Tyson a heads up that his Newton history is completely messed up. Not a peep from Tyson.
Tyson has yet to acknowledge that the Christians of the dark ages knew the earth was spherical.
He has yet to acknowledge that the pope and many bishops were well aware of Copernicus' ideas long before the death bed publication of his book -- and that said bishops encouraged Copernicus and helped him publish his book.

Tyson enjoys very loudly correcting inaccuracies in pop culture. He argues pop culture is a great scaffolding to get the general public discussing science. Well, Neil has become a prominent personality in our pop culture landscape. Yet he makes very little effort to correct his false histories. And he really should make a strong effort if he is indeed committed to truth and accuracy.

This failure has led me to believe that Neil is dishonest as well as addled.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Because let's be honest here, if I want to learn about the evolution of islamic society / culture and the role a person like Ghazali might have played in it... I'm not going to go to an astro-physicist who's main claim to fame is giving entertaining interviews and talks on popular TV shows with the main goal of getting people interested in the sciences....

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Hop_David said:

Indeed. We all suffer from confirmation bias. We all tend to swallow B.S. if it seems to confirm what we want to believe.

Neil frequently gives excellent advice on how to mitigate this human failing -- Make a habit of challenging all claims and assumptions to see if they are supported by evidence.

Unfortunately Neil as well as his fans consistently fail to follow their own advice. They are too busy trying to pull motes from the eyes of their neighbors.

Neil likes to say that scientific literacy empowers you to know when someone is full of ****. And here we have the spectacle of Neil serving "skeptics" a 4 course meal of B.S.. And prominent skeptics devouring it without question. Year after year after year. Courtesy of Tyson all these so called skeptics have bull **** stains on their bibs. Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Sam Harris, Stephen Novella, and the list just goes on and on and on.

The lesson that Neil is teaching us is that we all suffer from confirmation bias. Not just the alt right. But also those who pay lip service to science and skepticism.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I get it, you don't like these people.

Tyson did not have much choice but to admit his Bush and Star Names story was a screw up.

Click to expand...

You say this like it is a bad thing or that he was "guilty" of something.
If he was mistaken and then corrected himself when it was pointed out, isn't that then commendable instead?

Why isn't your OP about that?
Why does this entire thread just smell like you trying to find excuses to hate on these celebs?

I didn't even know about this error having been pointed out to him and then him acknowledging his error.
I find it kind of "suspect" that even though he admitted to this error, you are still ranting on him of being mistaken about it, while you apparently already know of him admitting to this error?

I can't help but feel like you are simply on some kind of crusade here.

It was very obvious he was wrong and the story was starting to get attention in main stream news outlets.

Other than a brief admission on my obscure blog, I have yet to see Tyson acknowledge his Ghazali story is fiction.
For at least 7 years Thony Christie and other historians have been attempting to give Tyson a heads up that his Newton history is completely messed up. Not a peep from Tyson.
Tyson has yet to acknowledge that the Christians of the dark ages knew the earth was spherical.
He has yet to acknowledge that the pope and many bishops were well aware of Copernicus' ideas long before the death bed publication of his book -- and that said bishops encouraged Copernicus and helped him publish his book.

Tyson enjoys very loudly correcting inaccuracies in pop culture. He argues pop culture is a great scaffolding to get the general public discussing science. Well, Neil has become a prominent personality in our pop culture landscape. Yet he makes very little effort to correct his false histories. And he really should make a strong effort if he is indeed committed to truth and accuracy.

This failure has led me to believe that Neil is dishonest as well as addled.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but at this point, due to this feeling I have about your motives being suspect, I will no longer take your word for how he supposedly reacted (or not) to people pointing out whatever to him.


It seems to me that you are very eager to accuse the man of deliberate dishonesty with malicious intent, but offer very little evidence for that accusation.

Altfish said:

Until you had functioning governments, apart from a few benefactors (often done to be seen in a better light so they would get to heaven) churches were the only clubs around.

Click to expand...

The Roman emperors all the way down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD provided funding for just about everything - including the financing of temples, then churches, monasteries, etc. The churches did become very wealthy at times and often were the largest landowners in many parts of the empire. But the government almost always had the final say in matters. In times of crises for example they would even confiscate the gold and silver from the churches to melt down and pay the troops. OK I am going off on a tangent here.

Hop_David said:

Are you talking about the 2007 and 2008 Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS) papers? Tyson's name appears very late on a long list of authors on what seem to be review papers.

Don Barry is a real astrophysicist. Here is his answer to someone asking if Tyson was a practicing astrophysicist:



And here is a similar assessment in a discussion of Tyson in the physics subreddit. In particular the argument between cantgetno197 and Hikaruzero. Hikaruzero tries hard to defend Tyson be even he has to admit his C.V. is very weak.

Again, he has done little if any research since his dissertation in the early 90s. And, judging by all the physics he gets wrong, hasn't opened a textbook in that time either.

Click to expand...

So, how many papers must one publish in the field in which they earned their PhD before you consider them a legit researcher? How often? If you stop publishing for a year are you still a scientist? Ten years?

You seem to have an irrational hatred for Tyson who, while he makes some historical blunders, seems to an honest guy trying to educate people about the natural world.

Curriculum Vitae - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Shadow Wolf said:

Probably a lack of interest. Agnostics are known for not discussing religion much (such as we see here in the essentially dead Agnostics DIR). Tyson has affirmed his stance by saying he doesn't have the energy for it and he is first and foremost a scientist.
And a bonus point is he's actually not that hard against religion and has criticized Dawkins for a "fang and claw" approach towards the subject.

Click to expand...

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.

Hop_David said:

TL;DR I believe religion has done more to promote and enable science than to hinder it.

Click to expand...

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.

Even though there is great wealth, it can be argued the oil exporting countries were originally governments put in place by western powers. They are still victims of colonialism.

Click to expand...

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

Not true. The United Arab Emirates recently sent a probe to Mars.

Click to expand...

Right, I forgot about them.

Augustus said:

From about 22.20 for 3 or so minutes Sam Harris is certainly terribly wrong about history.

Christianity lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire and ushered in the Dark Ages.

Classical knowledge was only preserved in the Islamic world

The church, which was opposed to science, refused to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm he was right

Click to expand...

Terribly wrong? Set us straight!

Kooky said:

Not trying to be mean, honest, but does Harris actually have a field of expertise?
From what I gathered, he seems mostly a writer of anti-theist opinion pieces.

Click to expand...

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.

firedragon said:

I think this is subjective. So you cant impose your subjective values upon someone else. Also this vaccination matter is so hacked.

Click to expand...

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