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.
Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading. I'm not going to explain it to you because there are thousands of books which could be considered relevant to that.
Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.
because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments
Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. The sentence is saying he does both of these things, but does not say he does both of them at the same time.
Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.
If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.
Furthermore I'm not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.
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
A lot of science fiction should instead be called science fantasy.
Which is why I hate the majority of scifi as they aren’t self aware.
Self aware science fantasy can be excellent.
Hard science fiction can also be excellent for different reasons.
So like hitchhikers guide?
Sadly I've never gotten around to reading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy however what I have heard is good.
I'm a big fan of the satire in 40k which has novels spanning several genres, so there's almost always a fresh type of novel to dig into, even if they are the equivalent of cheap romance novels but for nerds
I mean, honestly, the phenomena in the book were surprisingly plausible.
Obviously the movie took some liberties here and there, either out of necessity or purely for style, but pretty much everything in the book at least has some semblance of a connection to our current understanding of science.
I don't think seeing into the future using drugs and the crazy women cult with power to control people with their voice was really aiming for scientific accuracy.
Best part where they had genetic memories from after the genes were passed.
The books went to some pains to convey that memories after birth were not passed along. Haven't watched this flick though.
No, they weren't going to any lenght to show that, iirc Leto II and some BG admitted to have memories of many deaths, which would be impossible if those were genetic memories. The only one who legitly could have those was the last Duncan since he was ghola made from the amalgam of genetic material from many previous gholas, and even in his case it was explicitly said he had memories he shouldn't have.
It's just magic.
The Bene Gesserit control people by knowing how to modulate their voice to trigger people's base instincts. Like, that instinct that tells you to run when you hear a tiger's roar, or shiver when you hear a whisper. It's just that, cranked up to 11. Iirc, they can only really use the Voice on a person after having studied them to find what they will react to (or if they happen to be particularly weak-willed).
As for seeing the future: Computers were replaced with humans long ago in Dune, but they continued to fill and develop those niches with the human mind. Future-sight is essentially like a supercomputer running a simulation, which is why Paul is able to see the future better when he takes spice, or the Water of Life. By gaining the latent genetic knowledge of his ancestors and thereby having more data to work from, he is better able to run these mental simulations.
latent genetic knowledge of his ancestors
Oh so complete fantasy
Well, yeah, it's a fiction novel.
The explanations were thorough and fun (in my opinion), just not the most scientific. But I think Dune, like star wars, was always more of a space opera than hard scifi. It definitely does a better job, but if your looking for a better "predict the future with data" scifi story, then foundation is a better fit from that era.
Foundation is awesome. It also has a very fun BBC radio drama on archive.org
Man I sure hope the year 10191 isn't considered scientifically accurate by 2024 standards
Newsflash!
Neil Degrasse Tyson secretly aspired to be a mentat; is sore he’ll lose cred if he reveals same.
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.)
The criticism is of course accurate enough. It's even addressed in the books - there is some discussion in the books about "drum sand", but it isn't really elaborated on in the movie.
You just have to read the books. It's a very good piece of science fiction
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.
I assume the worms move with something akin to jet propulsion. They suck sand in the front continuously and it travels all the way through them and out the back.
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.
He’s just jealous of mentat calculation abilities and making up any complaint he can possibly think of to discredit the franchise.
For true stories that are so ridiculous, that you could have sworn it was an !theonion worthy story.