You must log in or register to comment.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the living embodiment of “Ackchually”. Every time I hear anything about him, it’s because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.
I don’t get the hate. People turn to him for more “sciency” answers and in most cases the answer is “it’s scientifically bogus”. What kind of answer are you expecting? One where he throws out all credibility of his answer by forgoing science? At that point you might as well ask me and not him.
As an example, I dont think anyone prompted him for a science answer on this.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928?lang=en
I just think the guy can be pretty tone deaf, trying to make science the point of something when it very much has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
At least he’s consistent. He says things in the context of science. Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong. If you want to go off on him for that I’m not going to defend that tweet.
But really that’s not what you had in mind when you made your original comment which means that wasn’t also what I defended.
I disagree, that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment.
The gist of that tweet is such.
Everyone :“Hey a bunch of people were just killed in a mass shooting.”
NDG: “Well ackchually, that many people being killed in a mass shooting only really gets attention because its a spectacle, here’s a bunch of unrelated death counts.”
I don’t give a fuck if he’s right or wrong statistically, and neither did anyone else when he made the tweet. Per my last comment, the whole point is that the statistics have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Furthermore being consistent in this context is not necessarily a positive, again that is the entire crux of what I am getting at, not everything benefits from someone bringing up the science of something in all contexts, such as that tweet. These are reasons why I used it as an example.
because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.
So. Which part of his tweet needs suspension of disbelief and which artistic or philosophical purpose he ignored about the shootings?
Philosophy:
The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong.
So. What part of moral right and wrong and humanity doesn’t have to do with philosophy at its basest level?
So to answer your question, probably the part where he ignored the entire concept of humanity and moral right and wrong (moral values) in favour of presenting statistical data, which was pointed out as morally wrong by yourself actually. Probably the part where he ignored the entire philosophical concept that the murder of a whole bunch of people is a bad thing and making a comment belittling it was not moral.
You implied it was so morally wrong you wouldn’t even defend it, but here we are.
If you can’t understand what philosophy has to do with human death, and see the part where Neil ignored it in favor of statistics, you should probably do some reading. I’m done explaining it to you.
The fuck? Do you not understand what you yourself have wrote?
makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes
Says the act ITSELF was done for artistic or philosophical purposes and he makes stupid comments about that act. What you’ve done is apply the ignored philosophy to his comment not to the act itself. So I’m going to ask again, this time explicitly to make it crystal clear. Which part of the ACTUAL shootings, not the aftermath of the shootings, are purposefully philosophical or artistic? And if there are any, how did he ignore those parts.
And how about you don’t ignore the suspension of disbelief part. You said that tweet was EXACTLY what you had in mind. Where’s the suspension of disbelief?
EDIT: Alternatively you can just admit that this was not what you had in mind with the original comment.
I like Neil… He’s asbergers as fuck but I always liked his passion and the way he explains things with energy and without making the question asker feel like an idiot.
I’m expecting a scientist to have better things do do than weigh in on the realism of fantasy, myself.
After his interview about plant aliens coming to Earth and looking in horror at how people eat vegetables, I refuse to listen to anything that this man says. I used to really like him as a kid, shame.
That’s ironic, on the flip side you have people in the ufo/alien circles who are upset because of his statements that no other civilization would ever want to visit or study this planet.
The book also wasn’t, shocking i know.
Almost like, and hear me out on this, science fiction isn’t science, but fiction.
mind blown
I don’t even think science is involved. Dune is straight fantasy.
All of these comments expressing distaste with Neil deGrasse Tyson’s character. I want to hear what people think about the actual criticism though.
(For those who didn’t click: sand absorbs sound, so there’s no way worms can hear thumping. Also, how do the worms move while rigid/straight.)
spoiler
It’s based on a soft science book about a guy who can see into the future, has a super-computer brain and controls people with his voice. In later book a guy’s clone gets his dead memories because he was ordered to kill his buddy. Another guy lives for 3000 years by putting worms on his skin.
It’s a fun series with some philosophical themes. I recommend it. scientific accuracy was not a goal and seems beside the point, but it makes sense for a science entertainer to have something to say about it while it’s trending
P.S. their plated skin is involved in their movement. Think it’s less a wriggle sometimes and more like a sound wave. compress expand?
In the book (and in the first movie) they specifically talk about “drum sand”, in the book it’s explained that it is a specific condition of the sand bed due to wind or something. Maybe Neil missed that?
I get his point about worm movement, though.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson once again has a scientific bone to pick with a motion picture.
This time, per The Hollywood Reporter, Tyson’s qualms are with the second installation of Dennis Villineuve’s “Dune” series — a film in which a superhuman cohort of women use a special voice to perform mind control and a very bald Stellan Skarsgård floats through the air.
But as the scientist explained an appearance on the “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” last week, his issues aren’t with the superhuman magic of it all.
According to online forum discussions and a 2017 study, Tyson’s right: sand is pretty good at absorbing noise.
But as Tyson points out, pretty much all legless, worm or snake-like creatures on Earth have to slither in S-shaped lines if they want to move forward.
Colbert and Tyson then went back and forth with some worm movement theories; the former offered that perhaps they have some sort of propellant system on their underbellies, while the latter wondered whether they might simply be “pooping really fast.”
The original article contains 407 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Regardless of what Neil deGrasse Tyson says, the movies sucked.
What did you dislike about those movies?
Movie was great and I understand why they cut some stuff out from the story but I just don’t get why they moved the timeline up so fast. Paul did all this before his sister was even born. Just bothers me.
I actually think it was a good decision. The sister doesn’t play a huge part in the first book. The movie had to compress things for time. It would’ve been distracting to introduce a new character that doesn’t do much during the crescendo near the end.
Yeah I see the reasoning. It just takes me out of the movie he did all this in a few months. I don’t think any movie choices were bad just different. Like chany characters behavior is different than I recall. Like a 180. Is it believable yes. Is it what I expected nope.
Didn’t watch the movie, get why they’d leave out Alia, but I always look forward to her killing the baron when I reread. makes me sad about Children too.
Lol was hoping for that too but you realize it won’t happen third of the way in. I think the third movie is going to have add all the parts about Alia they cut. Which I agree is not too much. For non dune fans that were with me Alia came out as ultra creepy and they didn’t get her character. In Past versions I was sympathetic toward her. But again she didn’t have much screen time to flush her out a bit.
I guess she is sorta creepy in the books, but with the literary irony u sympathise. That’s be hard in a movie
Uh, no
No shit.