The false histories of Neil deGrasse Tyson

Shadow Wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

(Sigh....) Again. Ghazali never declared math was of the devil. That is a Tyson fiction.

And yes, when someone states demonstrably false fictions as historical fact the are demonstrating a "glaring lack of historical knowledge".

Shadow Wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

So... Do you want me to acknowledge that the Islamic Golden Age ended when Ghazali wrote that math was the work of the devil?

Even though Tyson admitted Ghazali never wrote that? And even though Islamic innovation continued long after Ghazali's time?

Tyson does shed some light, though.

He demonstrates many New Atheists are credulous and lack critical thinking skills. LIke most people they are happy to swallow falsehoods without question if they seem to support what you want to believe.

Heyo said:

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

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).

Click to expand...

You're all about the evidence?

So why didn't you examine Tyson's claims to see if they were supported by evidence? You were quite comfortable posting his false histories over and over again without bothering to check the accuracy of his claims.

Time and time again Tyson and his following preach the need for evidence and critical thinking skills. And time and time again Tyson will drop steaming loads which are swallowed without question.

And yet, here you are. Shoulders thrown back and and pushing YEC memes in our face. Look in a mirror. Tyson's advice applies to you as well. And Maybe Tyson wouldn't embarrass himself if he followed his own advice.

Tyson preaching skepticism and critical thinking skills is like adulterous Republicans preaching family values.

The Kilted Heathen said:

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

Click to expand...

He makes his claims very confidently and unequivocably. Here is the Bush and Star Names story. Here is his Hamid al Ghazali story.

Shadow Wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

And Tyson goes on to say Newton didn't try to solve the n-body problem because he had God on the brain. That he could have easily done Laplace's n-body mechanics in an afternoon.

When in fact Newton invested considerable amount of time and effort working on the 3-body problem. As did Euler (do you know who Euler is?). As did Lagrange. Laplace built on the work of Newton, Euler and Laplace.

To say Tyson could have done this work in an afternoon is a horribly ridiculous claim.

Also -- Do you think Newton came back to Halley with Principia before Newton turned 26? That he invented calculus and wrote Principia on a dare? In two months?

I'm sorry. But Tyson's history of Newton is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Hop_David said:

Here is the Bush and Star Names story.

Click to expand...

And here's his response to that:

For a talk I give on the rise and fall of science in human cultural history I occasionally paraphrase President George W. Bush from one of his speeches, remarking that our God is the God who named the stars, and immediately noting that 2/3 of all star-names in the night sky are Arabic. I use this fact to pivot from the present-day, back to a millennium ago, during the Golden Age of Islam, in which major advances in math, science, engineering, medicine, and navigation were achieved. The Bush reference is not written on my PowerPoint slides, which I keep sparse, but I remembered it from a speech he gave after September 11, 2001. And I presented it that way, as Bush’s attempt to distinguish “we” from ‘they.” When eager scrutinizers looked for the quote they could not find it, and promptly accused me of fabricating a Presidential sentence. Lawyers are good at this. They find something that you get wrong, and use it to cast doubt on everything else you say. Blogosphere headlines followed, with accusations of me being a compulsive liar and a fabricator.

What followed fascinated me greatly. As others had uncovered, the President indeed utter the following sentences:

In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.” The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.

Click to expand...

So while he was incorrect in when Bush said that - and he did say that - the point was still made. But people love to get hung up on the minutiae, missing the whole.

Hop_David said:

Here is his Hamid al Ghazali story.

Click to expand...

Which is apparently a very common theme in Academia. Not really something Tyson "made up" because he and he alone is wrong.

Hop_David said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are we going to call challenging an oligarch "disrespectful" instead of acknowledging that any ideology or worldview, religious or not, that endorses unchallenged oligarchy is dangerous and problematic?

The Kilted Heathen said:

So while he was incorrect in when Bush said that - and he did say that - the point was still made. But people love to get hung up on the minutiae, missing the whole.

Click to expand...

The point being that this xenophobic demagogue Christian president was using a very stupid argument to slam Muslims in his 9-11 speech?

[GALLERY=media, 9600]Tyson Bush by Hop_David posted Sep 10, 2021 at 12:38 PM[/GALLERY]

Yup. That big picture missed me completely. Because it is a fiction. Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from a mosque.

Also the Isaiah quote is completely different from Tyson's imaginary Genesis quote.

The Kilted Heathen said:

Which is apparently a very common theme in Academia. Not really something Tyson "made up" because he and he alone is wrong.

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that Ghazali wrote that math is the work of the devil. Except for Tyson and his credulous fans.

There are those that argue Ghazali was responsible for the decline in Islamic innovation. And there are scholars who say he made contributions towards the scientific revolution. I'm okay with with either position so long as it's supported with evidence. Personally I'm agnostic on whether Ghazali was a negative or positive but I lean towards positive.

Tyson can offer no evidence of a Ghazali text that says math is the work of the devil. Nor can he show Islamic innovation collapsed in Ghazali's time.

Here are a few Islamic scholars arguing against Tyson's claims:
Joseph Lumbard
Basil Altaie
Mohammed Hijab

Heyo said:

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

Click to expand...

Not really.

For example the issue during the Galileo affair was that there was no scientific consensus on the issue (most scientists actually rejected Galileo's arguments), so the church would not revise its interpretations. As such heliocentrism needed to be taught only as a theory, not a fact.

Heyo said:

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).

Click to expand...

US fundies are insane, but modern US fundamentalist Protestantism is in no way representative of historical Christianity as it wasn't married to a strict literalism. The problem is that people, wrongly, seem to think it is and that revising beliefs was beyond the pale.

Cardinal Bellarmine's letter to Galileo:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

i.e.what would change your mind: evidence

Hop_David said:

Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion.

Click to expand...

"Americans are asking 'Why do they hate us?'

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.
...

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom and may he watch over the United States of America."
-George W Bush, Thursday, September 20th, 2001

Click to expand...

It was well noted that Bush referenced his faith in an inordinate degree following 9/11.

Hop_David said:

Tyson can offer no evidence of a Ghazali text that says math is the work of the devil. Nor can he show Islamic innovation collapsed in Ghazali's time.

Click to expand...

The Islamic Golden Age ended somewhere around 1258-1350. Which would follow al-Ghazali's time under such academic theory, as was the essential claim. Not that al-Ghazali championed the collapse, as seems to be the claim of fervent anti-Tysonites.

It should also be noted heavily that you are referencing and lambasting something that happened over a decade ago, and has been recognized and addressed. Which, considering, looks incredibly foolish on your part.

Debater Slayer said:

Are we going to call challenging an oligarch "disrespectful" instead of acknowledging that any ideology or worldview, religious or not, that endorses unchallenged oligarchy is dangerous and problematic?

Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that Galileo wasn't making a principled stand against oligarchy, but was being self-serving and a bit of a ****, and wrongly thinking some other oligarchs (the Medicis) would protect him. He was a massive sycophant to the Medicis.

Augustus said:

It's worth pointing out that Galileo wasn't making a principled stand against oligarchy, but was being self-serving and a bit of a ****, and wrongly thinking some other oligarchs (the Medicis) would protect him. He was a massive sycophant to the Medicis.

Click to expand...

That still doesn't mean we should talk about prosecuting him for his views (or criticism of certain oligarchs) as an acceptable thing, though. Two wrongs don't make a right, and instead of completely glossing over the undesirable elements in governance at Galileo's time just because he himself may have had some poor qualities, it seems to me that it's more useful to understand the historical context and learn from it that any free society should be wary of oligarchy.

Debater Slayer said:

That still doesn't mean we should talk about prosecuting him for his views (or criticism of certain oligarchs) as an acceptable thing, though. Two wrongs don't make a right, and instead of completely glossing over the undesirable elements in governance at Galileo's time just because he himself may have had some poor qualities, it seems to me that it's more useful to understand the historical context and learn from it that any free society should be wary of oligarchy.

Click to expand...

It was for him doing something he had explicitly been told not to do.

If you want a modern example, Tommy Robinson was under injunction not to identify the defendants in a sexual abuse trial. He then did so and was imprisoned.

Tommy Robinson given nine-month jail sentence for contempt of court

Some people will say he was a martyr for free speech, others that he was being a racist and deserved his punishment. But he knowingly broke an injunction so he can't exactly complain he was punished.

Augustus said:

Not really.

For example the issue during the Galileo affair was that there was no scientific consensus on the issue (most scientists actually rejected Galileo's arguments), so the church would not revise its interpretations. As such heliocentrism needed to be taught only as a theory, not a fact.



US fundies are insane, but modern US fundamentalist Protestantism is in no way representative of historical Christianity as it wasn't married to a strict literalism. The problem is that people, wrongly, seem to think it is and that revising beliefs was beyond the pale.

Cardinal Bellarmine's letter to Galileo:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

i.e.what would change your mind: evidence

Click to expand...

That was one guy. The fact remains that Galileo was forced to recant his theory publicly and the church tried to suppress the spread of his theory. Classical oppression of science.

Kooky said:

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

Click to expand...

I'd say these states were built on new dogma, that's nothing like disbelieving in a god.

Heyo said:

That was one guy. The fact remains that Galileo was forced to recant his theory publicly and the church tried to suppress the spread of his theory. Classical oppression of science.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a theory, it was a hypothesis. He could have taught it as a hypothesis, just not as a theory. He was asked to present his ideas to the Vatican. Most scientists also disagreed with him.

Copernicus' text on heliocentrism was published by a bishop and dedicated to the Pope.

It's not quite as simple as you think.

The Kilted Heathen said:

It was well noted that Bush referenced his faith in an inordinate degree following 9/11.

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh. He called the terrorists "evil doers".

And, yes, Bush did quote scripture. That is not a crime in my book

But did he ever say "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to distinguish we from they? Did he use that time of intense anger to sow division between Christians and Muslims?

Absolutely not.

George Bush made many comments on Islam. Here are a few:



And so on.

The Kilted Heathen said:

The Islamic Golden Age ended somewhere around 1258-1350. Which would follow al-Ghazali's time under such academic theory, as was the essential claim. Not that al-Ghazali championed the collapse, as seems to be the claim of fervent anti-Tysonites.

Click to expand...

Tyson gives the Islamic Golden Age as 800 to 1100.

His words:"was the work of the devil and that cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical Enterprise of that period".

Or that the entire enterprise of the golden era collapses.

"Collapses" or "cut out the kneecaps" doesn't paint a picture of gradual decline some centuries after Ghazali's death. He is describing a collapse in Ghazali's lifetime.

And you continue to ignore there is no Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

The Kilted Heathen said:

It should also be noted heavily that you are referencing and lambasting something that happened over a decade ago, and has been recognized and addressed. Which, considering, looks incredibly foolish on your part.

Click to expand...

The Bush and Star Names fiction was a standard part of Tyson's routine from 2006 to 2014. So far as I know he's still doing his Ghazali schtick to this day.

Moreover, Tyson's fans continue to post and repost these fictions over and over again. I guess they didn't get the memo they've been debunked.

You're angry that I'm debunking some New Atheist urban legends that live to this day? That looks incredibly dishonest on your part.

Debater Slayer said:

Are we going to call challenging an oligarch "disrespectful" instead of acknowledging that any ideology or worldview, religious or not, that endorses unchallenged oligarchy is dangerous and problematic?

Click to expand...

Nope. Oligarchies suck. I don't like 'em.

Which doesn't change the fact that dissing an oligarch can be bad for your health. Whether religious or not.

Thank you for the straw man, though.

Hop_David said:

Nope. Oligarchies suck. I don't like 'em.

Which doesn't change the fact that dissing an oligarch can be bad for your health. Whether religious or not.

Thank you for the straw man, though.

Click to expand...

It's not a straw man, since I think we shouldn't focus on Galileo's actions only and treat the surrounding oligarchy as an acceptable thing. That's my point; I agree with the other parts of your above post.

Debater Slayer said:

It's not a straw man, since I think we shouldn't focus on Galileo's actions only and treat the surrounding oligarchy as an acceptable thing. That's my point; I agree with the other parts of your above post.

Click to expand...

I don't think that oligarchy was acceptable. Nor was I treating it as acceptable.

I was pointing out challenging oligarchies can be dangerous. And that oligarchies aren't restricted to religious institutions.

I was also pointing out that Galileo's ideas may have been suppressed more because he challenged authority of certain humans rather than heliocentrism challenging scripture.

Copernicus had no problems when his heliocentric ideas were presented to an earlier pope.

firedragon said:

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

Click to expand...

Apparently those who are against vaccines have opened their minds so much that their brains fells out. If we'd had such a willfully ignorant population 100 years ago, we'd still have polio wards in all of our hospitals and millions would still be dying of small pox each year. .