Neil deGrasse Tyson - Called by the Universe

[The Vegan Marxist]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has got to be one of my favorite speakers on science and his precise debunking's to pseudo-science:

xKOoTRE1HUc

[Sword and Shield]

Slightly off topic, the poor guy got hate mail from angry schoolkids loyal to Pluto when they correctly reclassified Pluto as a dwarf planet.

Edit: oh nvm he's talking about it in the video.

[The Vegan Marxist]

haha yeah. I've already read his book on Pluto. Great read!

[jake williams]

I was really terrified when I saw this thread that you were trying to poetically refer to his passing.

[Tenka]

I'm in the middle of Atlas Shrugged
Please let him be laughing his arse off while reading this shit...

[Sword and Shield]

Please let him be laughing his arse off while reading this shit...

What time?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What time?

It's at something like 1:30 onwards. The interviewer then mentions Ayn Rand and he says something to the effect of wondering why he hadn't read it sooner and that he's "not in the movement" in a strange way almost as if hinting at him liking it... :crying: I must say that is disturbing though I can't imagine it agreeing with his general views despite how pro-capitalist he is.

[Sword and Shield]

It's at something like 1:30 onwards. The interviewer then mentions Ayn Rand and he says something to the effect of wondering why he hadn't read it sooner and that he's "not in the movement" in a strange way almost as if hinting at him liking it... :crying: I must say that is disturbing though I can't imagine it agreeing with his general views despite how pro-capitalist he is.

He's probably the kind of neutral apolitical scientist that only cares about politics when it concerns science issues.

[Magón]

His greatest downfall was re-classing that little cold rock named Pluto. :p

Seriously though, he's pretty awesome.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

He's probably the kind of neutral apolitical scientist that only cares about politics when it concerns science issues.

I'd agree somewhat, but he also rambles a bit afterwards about believing in the "the experiment" that is the United States and racism has been/about to be transcended...

He is nice to listen to though on other subjects.

[jake williams]

He's probably the kind of neutral apolitical scientist that only cares about politics when it concerns science issues.
I don't think it's trivial that a) he unequivocably asserts that science is and always will be publicly funded, basically taking it for granted, and b) thinks that the public who pays for science has a democratic right both to know about it and decide what its priorities are. Those are the only political issues involving science he really speaks or acts on, and those are basically the right political positions to take on those issues.

[MarxSchmarx]

he unequivocably asserts that science is and always will be publicly funded, basically taking it for granted

I always found these kind of claims rather myopic but typical of many scientists in academia. Although the state plays a massive role, in the global north a hefty share of what non-scientists would consider as science is done in the private sector, funded by capital - especially in medicine, engineering, and (depending on whether you think it really is a science) economics. The state plays a substantial role and quantum innovation (except perhaps in engineering) does tend to come from state-funded sources, but by and large I think there is a tendency to exaggerate the role of the state. Part of this could be a reflection of this guy's field - places like the American Natural History Museum and the research they do are reliant on state funds for their survival, except for the occasional token donation from a major corporation. The same cannot be said of a field like, for example, chemical engineering.

Although there is nothing wrong with saying that science should be a public enterprise, I think downplaying the role of industry and the private sector in science betrays a certain "special-interest" mentality with respect to scientific politics. Indeed, ignoring a critique of capitalism and its pervasive extensions into most of the modern scientific workforce really does miss the forest for the trees.

[jake williams]

I always found these kind of claims rather myopic but typical of many scientists in academia. Although the state plays a massive role, in the global north a hefty share of what non-scientists would consider as science is done in the private sector, funded by capital - especially in medicine, engineering, and (depending on whether you think it really is a science) economics. The state plays a substantial role and quantum innovation (except perhaps in engineering) does tend to come from state-funded sources, but by and large I think there is a tendency to exaggerate the role of the state. Part of this could be a reflection of this guy's field - places like the American Natural History Museum and the research they do are reliant on state funds for their survival, except for the occasional token donation from a major corporation. The same cannot be said of a field like, for example, chemical engineering.

Although there is nothing wrong with saying that science should be a public enterprise, I think downplaying the role of industry and the private sector in science betrays a certain "special-interest" mentality with respect to scientific politics. Indeed, ignoring a critique of capitalism and its pervasive extensions into most of the modern scientific workforce really does miss the forest for the trees.
I'm not a specialist on the guy's life but he doesn't strike me as naive. That said, astrophysics does tend to be predominately publicly funded in a way, say, chemistry isn't.

[MarxSchmarx]

^^^ It could very well be that this person is in fact simply reluctant to speak publicly about the role of capital in science more broadly - on many levels that's understandable, but as a critique, I find that its efficacy is compromised because it ignores "the elephant in the room".

[Sword and Shield]

Although there is nothing wrong with saying that science should be a public enterprise, I think downplaying the role of industry and the private sector in science betrays a certain "special-interest" mentality with respect to scientific politics. Indeed, ignoring a critique of capitalism and its pervasive extensions into most of the modern scientific workforce really does miss the forest for the trees.

The truth is that most of the actual science that occurs is publicly funded. What is privately funded is usually better described as engineering (the implementation of ideas, not the invention of them).

[MarxSchmarx]

The truth is that most of the actual science that occurs is publicly funded. What is privately funded is usually better described as engineering (the implementation of ideas, not the invention of them).

Like I said,


in the global north a hefty share of what non-scientists would consider as science is done in the private sector, funded by capital - especially in medicine, engineering, and (depending on whether you think it really is a science) economics.


Anyway, the engineering/science divide isn't very useful - much of academic science is precisely about doing what people like you would call engineering, and in any case the impression that engineers don't come up with ideas is just not accurate.

[Sword and Shield]

Like I said,

Anyway, the engineering/science divide isn't very useful - much of academic science is precisely about doing what people like you would call engineering, and in any case the impression that engineers don't come up with ideas is just not accurate.

Wether you call it engineering or science the truth is that most of the new theoretical and experimental contributions are publicly funded.

[MarxSchmarx]

Wether you call it engineering or science the truth is that most of the new theoretical and experimental contributions are publicly funded.

I don't know what your quarrel with my original statement is. I already noted that most new quantum innovation (great leaps forward) have their origins in state funded sources.

[Sword and Shield]

I don't know what your quarrel with my original statement is. I already noted that most new quantum innovation (great leaps forward) have their origins in state funded sources.

Oh that's what you meant by quantum innovation. Why can't people use straightforward terms like "scientific breakthrough" instead of such confusing terms?

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't know what your quarrel with my original statement is. I already noted that most new quantum innovation (great leaps forward) have their origins in state funded sources. Oh that's what you meant by quantum innovation. Why can't people use straightforward terms like "scientific breakthrough" instead of such confusing terms?

What else did you think I meant? I personally think "scientific breakthrough" is, at least among non-scientists, basically synonymous with "quantum innovation". The latter I grant is a bit more poetic, but most people use the term in a similarly literary sense as in "quantum leap".

[Sword and Shield]

What else did you think I meant? I personally think "scientific breakthrough" is, at least among non-scientists, basically synonymous with "quantum innovation". The latter I grant is a bit more poetic, but most people use the term in a similarly literary sense as in "quantum leap".

I interpreted "quantum innovation" as innovation in quantum physics. I've never heard the phrase before, and I don't see it used in that context in google search either (unlike the commonly used "quantum leap").

[MarxSchmarx]

I interpreted "quantum innovation" as innovation in quantum physics. I've never heard the phrase before, and I don't see it used in that context in google search either (unlike the commonly used "quantum leap").

Oh ok. well I guess all I meant was a "quantum leap" as applied to innovation.