Credulous skeptics

[Hop_David]

Spoiler

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

 

[Ella S.]

I don't understand "celebrity skeptics."

To me, their best arguments can be made by anyone who is scientifically literate, but I think they frequently fail to have a sturdy foundation in topics like epistemology, logic, critical rationalism, and philosophy of science. The frequency with which they talk confidently about topics completely outside of their field of expertise speaks to that, I think.

Wouldn't an actual skeptic get their history from studying history, rather than an astrophysicist?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

Speaking of which, what do you think of Trump and the January 6th attack?

 

[icehorse]

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

It's not the responsibility of speakers at a conference to vet each other's claims, unless they are debating.

The other important point is that it's almost ALWAYS a good idea to separate the message from the messenger. So if a particular messenger got it wrong on one occasion, that shouldn't besmirch a good point that messenger might have made at another time.

 

[Hop_David]

I don't understand "celebrity skeptics."

A high profile, well known person who preaches skepticism.

To me, their best arguments can be made by anyone who is scientifically literate, but I think they frequently fail to have a sturdy foundation in topics like epistemology, logic, critical rationalism, and philosophy of science. The frequency with which they talk confidently about topics completely outside of their field of expertise speaks to that, I think.

Wouldn't an actual skeptic get their history from studying history, rather than an astrophysicist?

A skeptic is someone who makes it a practice to challenge assumptions and claims to see if they're supported by evidence.

Which is something Tyson and his following often fail to do. I've given examples of false claims and assumptions they've accepted with examination.

Like most humans they are happy to swallow falsehoods if they seem to support their prejudices. They give us excellent advice on how to avoid this common failing. And then they fail to follow their own advice. It's a lot like adulterous Republicans preaching family values.

 

[Hop_David]

Speaking of which, what do you think of Trump and the January 6th attack?

For the record I despise Trump. I believe Biden was elected fair and square. Those who tried to overturn the election should be severely punished.

But how is my opinion relevant to the points I've made. Are you trying to introduce a red herring or a straw man into the discussion?

 

[Hop_David]

It's not the responsibility of speakers at a conference to vet each other's claims, unless they are debating.

Not a conference. Conferences. Tyson made these claims many times. These fictions were a standard part of Tyson's routine. He told and retold the Bush and Star Names fantasy from 2006 to 2014. The other fictions he delivered over and over again for decades. So far as I know he is still spreading his misinformation regarding Newton.

Never once in that time did Tyson or his so called skeptic audience lift a finger to check Tyson's claims.

The other important point is that it's almost ALWAYS a good idea to separate the message from the messenger. So if a particular messenger got it wrong on one occasion, that shouldn't besmirch a good point that messenger might have made at another time.

In this case Tyson's message was that religious belief stifles innovation. And he invented false histories to support this message. Dawkins et al liked this message so they never bothered to fact check Tyson's claims.

 

[icehorse]

Never once in that time did Tyson or his so called skeptic audience lift a finger to check Tyson's claims.

You've shifted the goalposts a bit here. I would have thought that in that time some audience members might have done some research. Are you 100% your source is correct?

In this case Tyson's message was that religious belief stifles innovation.

I doubt his claim was quite that black and white. If he said "religious belief often stifles innovation", then I would agree with him.

 

[F1fan]

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

It would help if you explained what the "truth" is so we can assess your beliefs as a critic of a rather well educated and savvy thinking group.

 

[George-ananda]

I think that 'skeptic clique' are not true fair-minded skeptics but driven by favoritism towards an atheist-materialist worldview. Emotional preference will usually trump fair reasoning.

 

[Hop_David]

You've shifted the goalposts a bit here.

How so?

I would have thought that in that time some audience members might have done some research. Are you 100% your source is correct?

If so, evidently nobody gave him a heads up. Tyson continued telling and retelling these stories year after year after year.

But maybe Ann Druyan, Krauss, Novella, Dawkins or whoever did do some research. In which case they continued endorsing Tyson knowing that he was a source of falsehoods. And keeping mum about it as well.

So it would seem they were either credulous or dishonest.

I doubt his claim was quite that black and white. If he said "religious belief often stifles innovation", then I would agree with him.

Overall my impression he was arguing that religion tends to be destructive and inhibits innovation. Here is the TAM6 talk. And here is Beyond Belief. Judge for yourself.

He may or may not be correct. Personally I disagree with him but I don't mind that he is arguing a different view. What I object to is his using invented histories to support his arguments. False histories should be condemned whether or not you agree with his points.

 

[Hop_David]

It would help if you explained what the "truth" is so we can assess your beliefs as a critic of a rather well educated and savvy thinking group.

In my original post I listed the three false histories which link to my list of Tyson's errors and questionable claims.

 

[F1fan]

Overall my impression he was arguing that religion tends to be destructive and inhibits innovation. Here is the TAM6 talk. And here is Beyond Belief. Judge for yourself.

Well I suppose you could argue that religion only influences and affects those who aren't all that smart as it is, so those who are more skeptical of religion are the one's who tend to be innovators.

 

[icehorse]

So it would seem they were either credulous or dishonest.

Again, you're placing responsibility where it's not typically placed.

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Tyson's stories are substantially false. It could be he trusted his source when he heard them. It doesn't mean that he intentionally concocted the stories.

As for credulity - well that's not a black and white state. If I accept what a NASA engineer tells me about space travel without checking his claims, does that make me credulous?

And finally, you've got one source (is that correct?). And your claims are that Tyson, all of his co-speakers, and everyone in their numerous audiences were somehow all credulous? Do you have any additional sources?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I'm not sure it's just that clique. But as a general statement I'd say that skepticism runs contrary to hero worship or the notion that particular people are beyond fact-checking, etc.

There's a fine line between accepting information from a trusted source where it is not impactful anyway, and absorbing and internalizing incorrect information.

It was an interesting OP, and made some good points. I won't pretend to be particularly interested or knowledgeable about mathematics, but some of the reactions in this thread have interested me.

 

[Augustus]

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

All humans easily beieve that which is emotionally apealing to them, and self-identifying as a "sceptic" or "rationalist" doesn't change this fact.

Such labels are tribal identity markers anyway, and identifying with a side is always an impediment to critical and independent thinking. Hence the group think common in "sceptic" communities.

If you think Tyson struggles with his history though, you should take a look at Carl Sagan here spending 25 mins of Cosmos being wrong about pretty much everything he says regarding the Library of Alexandria and related issues.

Just because people think critically and sceptically on one topic doesn't mean they will do likewise on another topic. We tend to put our own rationality on a pedestal though (especially "sceptics") and see only the flaws in others.

The wonders of the compartmentalised human mind

 

[Subduction Zone]

A high profile, well known person who preaches skepticism.



A skeptic is someone who makes it a practice to challenge assumptions and claims to see if they're supported by evidence.

Which is something Tyson and his following often fail to do. I've given examples of false claims and assumptions they've accepted with examination.

Like most humans they are happy to swallow falsehoods if they seem to support their prejudices. They give us excellent advice on how to avoid this common failing. And then they fail to follow their own advice. It's a lot like adulterous Republicans preaching family values.

I think that you have that backwards. You may not understand the evidence that supports Tyson, Krauss, et al.. That does not mean that their ideas are not supported by evidence.

I am betting that if anyone is credulous here it would be you.

What particular beliefs or knowledge of those scientists do you disagree with? What is your evidence?

 

[Nakosis]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

They have a regard for money. So much the better it they can help each other in this pursuit.
Not to say nothing they said was legitimate but it is easy to let real science take a backseat to financial gain.

 

[Augustus]

I think that you have that backwards. You may not understand the evidence that supports Tyson, Krauss, et al.. That does not mean that their ideas are not supported by evidence.

I am betting that if anyone is credulous here it would be you.

What particular beliefs or knowledge of those scientists do you disagree with? What is your evidence?

The OP is not about their scientific credentials, but their credulity and lack of knowledge on other topics they opine on publicly.

Also that "sceptics" often trust what nonsense such people spout on topics they have minimal knowledge about simply because of their scientific credentials and the groupthink of "sceptic" communities on certain issues (primarily the history of religion).

 

[exchemist]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

I agree Tyson seems rather shallow and ignorant on matters of religion. He lost my respect with his shallow dismissal of philosophy: Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Value of Philosophy
(By the way I have a lot of respect for Pigliucci, who to me seems a beacon of sanity).

I also agree about the mutual admiration society among some of the "New" (i.e. evangelical) Atheists. Dawkins in particular seems to have wasted a lot of effort attacking an Aunt Sally rather than religion as it is practised by most people.

But I'm struggling with your last accusation, that, according to Tyson, Newton supposedly gave up on perturbation theory (is it?) due to his religious belief. Where in the link does Tyson say that?