[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 43 KB, 437x468, Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_-_NAC_Nov_2005.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221184 No.5221184 [Reply] [Original]

>Implying he has done anything other than just be a black person
>affirmative action

>> No.5221186

He's very good at his job. What's your problem?

>> No.5221188

>>5221184
By doing so he has achieved more than you ever will.

>> No.5221194

>>5221188
I have 3 patents for medical equipment. I've done way more than him. But I'm not black, so I'm not famous.

>> No.5221195

>>5221184
<span class="math">-\pi/10[/spoiler]

>> No.5221199

>>5221194
>3 patents

name the best one and let's see just how big an impact you really have had

>> No.5221202

>>5221199
>>5221200
There's no way I'm sharing them on 4chan, they have my name on them.

>> No.5221200

>>5221194
>I have 3 patents for medical equipment
no you don't

>> No.5221211

/sci/ is easily distracted. Back to the main point, yes NDGT is way over-rated and hasn't really done anything in his career. But he brings attention to science.

>> No.5221208

>>5221202
you probably just invented cherry flavored tongue depressors

having a patent doesn't mean shit unless it's actually being used to do something useful

>> No.5221215
File: 20 KB, 200x200, imblyign.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221215

>>5221202
>implying people care who you really are
I'm sure they just want to know that someone here has actually patented something and isn't a highschool pleeb.

>> No.5221214

>>5221202
>There's no way I'm sharing them on 4chan, they have my name on them.

If they have your name on them they are protected you imbecile. .

>> No.5221226

>>5221214
no shit, I don't think any of you faggots are going to steal my inventions. I'm not sharing my name on 4chan, you goddamned retard.

>> No.5221235

I don't think anyone in this board can provide a fair estimate of the contributions he's made unless they happen to be familiar with his field of research. Even then, most scientific research today is very specialized and its direct impact on the world is often limited, no matter the nature of the field.

In either case, he is popular not because he is a great scientist but because he does a good job to popularizescience, kind of like Sagan was in his day. I don't see why you have to take it as a personal challenge to compare yourself to other people.

>> No.5221236

>>5221226
>implying people care who you are

>> No.5221244

>>5221226
so you are saying if you where black you would be just as famous and successful as Tyson because you allegedly hold 3 patents?

>> No.5221250

>>5221235
Sagan actually contributed to science. But white people are expected to actually contribute.

>> No.5221251

>>5221244
He is trying to say that Tyson hasn't done anything great for science yet he is famous and shit.
Why?
Because he is black.

>> No.5221255

>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
ANSWER THIS GODDAMNED QUESTION

if you where black you would be just as famous and successful as Tyson because you allegedly hold 3 patents?

>> No.5221256

>>5221251
I direct you to this post

>>5221194

I want to know if OP actually believes this

>> No.5221263

>>5221194
>>5221194
>I have 3 patents for medical equipment
These are just ideas you told no one to steal. If you haven't done anything with them, it doesn't mean anything.

>> No.5221268

>>5221250
The purpose of getting a Ph.D is contributing to science. Tyson has definitely contributed. Your point doesn't make any sense.

>> No.5221265
File: 70 KB, 400x218, ad hominem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221265

It's outstanding that people here have derailed thread into flaming op and trying to discuss the original problem.

This board is a fucking joke

>> No.5221269

>>5221265
It was kind of obvious it was a troll thread.

>> No.5221273

His being black probably played no small part in his getting his current job, true.

However, he happens to be very good at that job, and is by all accounts a great guy. To say that "all he's done is be black" is to imply that any random black guy off the street could do as well as he's done, which is ridiculous, as is hating him for being successful.

Also, his being black, though obviously not an "accomplishment," does in fact make him better suited as a role model. I'm sorry if that buttdevastates you, but it's true.

>> No.5221276

>>5221250
If you can take the reasoned hypothesis that Sagan must have contributed to science because of his degree, then Tysson has done so as well. Again, unless you happen to be familiar with his area of research you don't really have a reasonable capacity to judge on "contributions" to science. And even in those cases, if you are published, by definition, you have contributed something new and unknown which merits publication.

It seems to me this thread is more about butthurt and false self-entitlement on the basis of a biased hypothesis: that only certain people can make contributions to a field based on your arbitrarily defined group characterestic.

If you want to bring up a coherent analysis of Tyson's research and why it is absolutely worthless and/or not worth of merit, then be my guest. In either case his popularity isn't based on that at all, so if you could at least try to compare apples to apples, then this thread might actually be worthy of any further discussion.

>> No.5221284

>implying being a pop scientist isn't the worst you can do
NDT brings to science what mainstream media brought to 4chan in 2008, newfags ruining it. NDT is the reason Reddit is full of edgy ATHEIST who want more government funded SCIENCE to make the world a better place or just plain I'M SUCH A NERD who FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.

>> No.5221300

>>5221284
>"newfags" "ruining" science

You are a moron. Stop talking.

>> No.5221313

>>5221300
They're the same kind of guys who like BBT

>> No.5221308

>>5221284
Science isn't some kind of secret club you fucking autist. I hate hipster Sagan/Tyson worshipers as much as the next guy, but you're completely wrong if you think there's anything wrong with trying to bring more exposure to science.

You honestly sound like you're 13 years old.

>> No.5221318

Well, at least he's an agnostic like us.

>> No.5221319

>>5221308
but the problem is they don't like science, they like photography and explosions and then make themselves feel important and try to validate their hobbies by calling it science.

>> No.5221320

>>5221313
No, they are not. I like BBT and I'm not a redditor, I'm a serious scientist.

>> No.5221322

Your right lets talk about this guys...

http://blackinventor.com/pages/benjamin-banneker.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Bradley

http://blackinventor.com/pages/fred-jones.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Howard_Latimer

>> No.5221326

>>5221184
>Implying being a successful internationally recognized scientist isn't a great accomplishment.

Is every day dumbass day on this board?

>> No.5221324

>>5221313
Implying guys don't like big breasted trannies.

>> No.5221332

>>5221319

There are plenty of people like that, but he also gets plenty of people genuinely interested in science.

And also, why is people romanticizing science a "problem?"

>> No.5221337

>>5221284
This.

>> No.5221335

>>5221319
I don't really see why that's a problem. People being idiots should not get you so upset.

>> No.5221346

>>5221332
Romanticizing science shouldn't be the goal of science popularizing anyhow. The goal should be about education in sciences. Romanticizing it is bad because it creates a dogmatic view of scientific thought, which is contradictory to what science is.

>> No.5221348

>>5221337
>make a stupid statement
>immediately get told
>have no response, so pretend to be someone else and reply "this" to the original statement

>> No.5221352

>>5221346
>Romanticizing science shouldn't be the goal of science popularizing anyhow. The goal should be about education in sciences.

Which is what he does.

>Romanticizing it is bad because it creates a dogmatic view of scientific thought,

How so?

>> No.5221355

>>5221348
morethanonepersonisnotagreeingwithmemustbesamefag.png

>> No.5221363

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd

>> No.5221365

>>5221355
This.

>> No.5221367

There are plenty of scientists walking around who were inspired by Carl Sagan when they were young, and there are plenty of kids who are inspired by NDT now who will grow up to be scientists.

If you're going to idolize a group of people, you could certainly do a hell of a lot worse than scientists. Would you rather kids only look up to pop stars and athletes?

>> No.5221374

>>5221363

Yes, we know that's where the haters are getting their opinions from.

>> No.5221398

back to OP

Tyson hasn't actually done anything other than being a token black man "scientist"

bring up one research paper with his name on it, one major discovery he was behind.

you can't

it devalues science to have token figureheads sharing their opinions when they haven't done anything to earn it, IMO.

At least sagan has a few discoveries under his belt, and hundreds of research papers. Where's Tysons? Nowhere.

>> No.5221404

>>5221398

So you're just going to ignore the whole thread?

>> No.5221411

>>5221404
no i read the entire thing its mostly bickering about some guy that brought up his medical patents, then people saying "oh its ok NGTdenigger hasnt done anything because hurf durf at least he like popularizes science, man"

he popularizes popscience, if he was influential in increasing funding for something other than his own books I might change my opinion.
FUck him, fuck you.

>> No.5221419

>>5221398
I was with you until you brought up Sagan. I seriously hope you don't think he was any better than Tyson in his scientific contributions.

>> No.5221423

>>5221411
>NGTdenigger

Ah, now I see what's going on here.

>>>/pol/

>> No.5221427

>>5221411

Uh, see

>>5221367
>>5221273
>>5221276

These are good arguments. If you don't have counterarguments, just admit you're irrationally butthurt.

>> No.5221424

If nothing else, he is encouraging other people to be better people.

>> No.5221430

>>5221419
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Scientific_achievements

there isnt even a section like this for Tyson, hahaha ahh

>> No.5221438

>>5221430
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#research

>> No.5221448

>>5221438
yeah he was involved in 13 papers that NEVER get quoted in other research, therefore its worthless deadend research. Sagan was involved in over 600, and he was responsible for actual discoveries that benefit the progress of astronomy

>> No.5221467

>>5221448
13 Papers? Thats embarrassing. I'm an undergrad and my name is already on 3 published papers.

He really is a token black "scientist". OP was right. Eat shit popsci liberal arts majors.

>> No.5221473

>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244
>>5221244

All other points aside, I'm still waiting on OP to back up this statement

>> No.5221477

why does /sci/ hate minorities like tyson?

this reminds me of another world-renowned scientist, daniella titan, who was also vilified by the white male establishment of /sci/.

this is shameful

>> No.5221488

>>5221477
because affirmative action is insidious. It devalues people that have actual contributions by conflating fame with someone that hasnt actually done anything worthwhile in his career. There are minorities out there busting ass and making contributions but you never hear of them. Ill bet more average Americans know about Tyson than Salk.

>> No.5221494

>>5221448
>NEVER get quoted in other research
>therefore its worthless deadend research

What are you 14 years old or something? That's not how scientific research works, champ. Research is research, no matter how minute you may perceive it to be. Sagan's own discoveries (his peer-reviewed research, not the pseudo-science ET stuff he started churning out in his later, senile years) were small too, completely confined to our solar system. His research contributions are no more or less important than Tyson's, or 90% of astronomy and astrophysics PhD's. His true contribution to science was in its advocacy, same with NDT.

Don't worry though sport, once you get past high school there's a good chance that you'll also get past your insecurities/racism. Science really has no place for that kind of intolerance.

>> No.5221495

>>5221477

When you say /sci/ hates "____", remember that for the most part all we have to go by is post made anonymously so it's hard to tell if it's actually a /sci/ regular or some wandering shit poster from /b/ or /pol/ trolling.

>> No.5221500

>>5221488

yes rush limbaugh i have heard that argument before and no female or person of color believes it.

>> No.5221501

>>5221477
>world-renowned scientist, daniella titan,

Haha, I'll give you a solid 7/10 for that one.

>> No.5221507

>>5221494
completely utterly don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Sagan made actual discoveries which led to the advancement of understanding. The fact his research gets quoted in other research is the basic tenet of advancement. Tyson did research for research's sake, nobody quotes it in other papers because its not worthwhile. Its this kind of shit that makes republicans rage about wasting money to count beavers/acre or stars in the butthole nebula. It discounts people that do work that is actually beneficial to greater understanding. All research is not the same, and the amount of times your articles are quoted in current publishing is relevant to how important it is.
idiot fucker

>> No.5221513

>>5221507

it has been shown that people of color are not quoted because of sub-conscious discrimination.

the same thing happens when a scientist or researcher has a name like takesh'a jones. even if the other person has no reason to think she is a person of color, he or she will discriminate on the basis of the name alone.

cultural bias is insidious in the white male establishment and it sickens me.

>> No.5221518

>>5221513
you're fucking trolling, next you'll say women in science are discriminated against.

vast majority of papers I read have names like Ching Chong et el and Ravusshepadu CanteatCows.
asshole

>> No.5221527

>>5221500
AA in it's current state is racism and will be repealed this summer

>> No.5221528

>>5221518

you use a name like "ching chong" and "canteatcows" and expect to be taken seriously?

this would be funny except that is what goes on behind closed doors once all the white people are together.

2012. fucking 2012 and we are still behaving like barbarians.

>> No.5221532

>>5221527

afirmative action is the kindest and best thing white america ever did to fight racism and sexism.

please do not go back in time to protect white male privilege.

>> No.5221530

>>5221527
sweet I might actually be able to get into a good med school on my own merits then

booya

>> No.5221534

>>5221507
>Sagan made actual discoveries which led to the advancement of understanding.
Name an important one which isn't on wikipedia.

>> No.5221537

>>5221528
>oh noes i can't debate the mean ol' racist on the merits of my arguments just label him a whitey and be done with it

>every liberal on the face of the planet

>> No.5221538

>>5221507
>Sagan made actual discoveries which led to the advancement of understanding.
Care to elaborate?

>The fact his research gets quoted in other research is the basic tenet of advancement.
No, it is not, and I really don't see why you keep bringing this point up. Referencing research has absolutely no bearing on its importance.


>Tyson did research for research's sake, nobody quotes it in other papers because its not worthwhile.
I really can't believe you just said that. Research for research's sake? This is the type of thinking that makes it so difficult for researches to get grants in the first place. Not all scientific publications are going to disprove classical mechanics. It's the coordination of that research that eventually leads to anything substantial.

>idiot fucker
You know you're really not helping your case that you're anything but an upset and underage racist.

>> No.5221546

He is a science COMMUNICATOR, he doesn't have to do research. A lot of effort goes into communication now and it has become a competitive field in itself, doing extremely well in that is a big achievement.

>> No.5221547

>>5221532
Oh, so when it gives an advantage to any race/gender besides white males its good?

If you were to replace "white males" with any other race and the female gender, you would be crying out racism and sexism.

You hypocrites are the cancer plaguing the US right now

>> No.5221544
File: 571 KB, 456x628, 1345225549809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221544

>>5221507

>research for research sake is bad
>only good research is quoted research
>therefore regulation of knowledge is good

>> No.5221553

>>5221547

you cannot be serious. you sound like glenn beck and ann coulter's love child.

every american knows that afirmative action is the most fair compromise that we have, and accepts it as a permanent solution to white racism and male sexism.

please read a book sometime, other than "guns and ammo".

>> No.5221559

>>5221534
What is wikipedia not good enough for you? Ok fine, faggot.
heres a paper citing sagan "faint young Sun" problem of atmospheric evolution on the terrestrial planets (Sagan & Mullen 1972)
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Claire2012_StellarFluxEvolution.pdf

bam
fuck you

>> No.5221563

>>5221527
I don't think you understand what AA really is. Affirmative action in its current state in America serves to ensure that underrepresented minority groups are not discriminated against in the admissions process for schools or job openings, and that steps are actively taken to encourage those URM groups to apply/attend. That is AA by definition, and I really hope you don't think there's anything wrong with that.

It's when institutions setup "quotas" for the number of minority students they need to accept each year that it becomes a problem.

Meanwhile, using race/ethnicity as a factor for determining admission is completely separate from AA or quotas.

>> No.5221569

>>5221559
so in other words Sagan did noteworthy research in 1972 that is still used as a basis for current applications 40 fucking years later.

Sorry you idiots that are counting squirrels per acre or the maximum velocity of your balls dropping into your scrotums for the first time are probably wasting tax dollars that could be better put towards people that are actually doing research that is applicable to problems facing humanity.

>> No.5221575

>>5221569
and Tyson is emblematic of an affirmative action waste of tax dollars that shouldnt be given a soapbox to stand on much less a job, he devalues the entire scientific institution by being a worthless piece of shit that has done nothing worthwhile in his entire career.
Fuck him, fuck you liberals.

>> No.5221576

>>5221569
And what exactly is that paper you linked doing to help solve "problems facing humanity"?

>> No.5221584

>>5221553
I like how you responded with my comment. Comparing me to Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter.

After AA is repealed, a new law should be written to state that the use of gender or race should not be used to give an advantage in any job application or college application.

That's all the law needs to say, nothing more.
This way, everything is built upon merit by each person, nothing else

>> No.5221588

>>5221575

>fuck you liberals.

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

Time to end the thread anons.

>> No.5221591

>>5221576
god you fucking micromind why are you even on /sci you piece of shit?

here, from the abstract:

ABSTRACT
Understanding changes in the solar flux over geologic time is vital for understanding the evolution of planetary
atmospheres because it affects atmospheric escape and chemistry, as well as climate.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT CLIMATE ERM CHANGE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FACING HUMANITY? HURM? DURR??

>> No.5221600

>>5221477
>daniella titan
Instantly in love...

>> No.5221617

>>5221591
>WOULD YOU SAY THAT CLIMATE ERM CHANGE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FACING HUMANITY?

Yes, but that summary says nothing of climate change. Please try to understand what the publication is about first, then get back to me. Don't worry, I'll wait.

>> No.5221620

>>5221588
Told status:
[ ] Popsci
[ ] community college
[X]affirmative action repealed

>> No.5221623
File: 60 KB, 251x316, daniela_goggles2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221623

>>5221600

i miss her so much. beauty combined with spectacular intellect is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

i can practically smell her greek armpits in this picture.

>> No.5221626

>>5221617

holy crap, its a study on solar fluctuations

you can't fathom how solar fluctuations can effect planetary climate?

really?

>> No.5221638

I haven't done anything, have no patents or inventions, and Neal DeGrasse Tyson is still Overrated Affirmative Action Science.

>> No.5221640

>>5221620

>Told status:

>>>/b/
>>>/v/
>>>/pol/

seriously you're not helping yourself

>> No.5221646

>>5221184
>Mexican woman in surveying
>more discriminated against than blacks
>gets equal pay, sometimes more than the average black or white man, due to my skill

Fuck off with race, it doesn't really matter in this day and age. There'll always be some racism, but it doesn't affect people as much as they claim. It's just as bad as the feminist argument for women getting paid less. It's honestly not true.

In the end, threads like this are just based around envy. You're jealous. You need to get over it, or get off of /b/, because I'm fairly certain the average lurker is more intelligent than you are.

>> No.5221647

>>5221591
That's a slim association it doesn't prove its helpful in dealing with climate change. That paper doesn't cover small changes in solar flux, it covers changes of many millions of years where equilibrium can be achieved. Short timescale variations had been considered for a long time before due to the maunder minimum. In fact Sagans paper cites many of them.

>> No.5221648

>>5221640
i refuted all of your popsci liberal affirmative action propaganda

i found a recent, relevant publication that cites carl sagan
there is NOTHING similar I could find for Tyson

so now you're just going off on my non-politically correct free speech instead of admitting you're token popsci mouthpiece has no business being in the public eye

>> No.5221656

>>5221647
You're grasping at straws. You lost the argument and are trying to nitpick. Go find something that Tyson published that gets quoted in recent, relevant articles and Ill concede.

>> No.5221659

>>5221626
Yes it A paper on solar fluctuation. I have a book on my desk full of papers on the climatic impact of solar fluctuations. That doesn't prove it is useful today.

>> No.5221665

>>5221656
I'm not defending Tyson, I'm saying that your claim that that paper is instrumental in problems facing humanity is false.

>> No.5221677
File: 13 KB, 251x251, 1336024582466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221677

i like him, i hope the new cosmos is good, it won't live up to sagan's but then again that's not really fair, carl was a one off.

>> No.5221681

>>5221648

The irony for you is I'm originally >>5221322

But you have clearly gone beyond simply making a statement about whether or not he's done anything for the advancement of humanity. Now you're literally saying that he's done nothing for the advancement of knowledge itself and have even attack the validity of conducting any general research.

Yeah you're going off the deep end and it needs to stop or taken to another board.

>> No.5221687

PopSci isn't bad. PopSci is doing what most real scientists can't, and making science look good to the media-controlled population.

Again, this is all just envy.

Michio Kaku works mainly with PopSci, and actually has works that have been cited fairly often, though... So it can go both ways, I suppose.

My only problems with Tyson is that he works against popular opinion as hard as he can, in order to spark more publicity for himself. He was the most active proponent in both the removal of Pluto's classification as a planet, and for the defamation of Intelligent Design as a scientific idea.

>> No.5221695

>>5221681
I disagree that he has achieved nothing but a simple refutation would be to finds recent work citing Sagan.

>> No.5221722

The claims that Tyson had never been cited are false, I quickly found a citation in a thesis only looking at one of the small letters.

>> No.5221742

>>5221722
Whoever stated that Tyson had no citations is an ass. His name is on a very big paper scoville et al. 2007 which has many citations.

>> No.5221764

>>5221687
>He was the most active proponent in both the removal of Pluto's classification as a planet, and for the defamation of Intelligent Design as a scientific idea.

And the problem is...?

>> No.5221770

>>5221764
>And the problem is...?
THE GUY SAID WHAT THE FUCKING PROBLEM IS EXACTLY ONE SENTENCE PRIOR TO THAT QUOTE, YOU GODDAMN RETARD

>> No.5221786

>>5221742
Scoville, N.; Abraham, R. G.; Aussel, H.; Barnes, J. E.; Benson, A.; Blain, A. W.; Calzetti, D.; Comastri, A.; Capak, P.; Carilli, C.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Carollo, C. M.; Colbert, J.; Daddi, E.; Ellis, R. S.; Elvis, M.; Ewald, S. P.; Fall, M.; Franceschini, A.; Giavalisco, M.; Green, W.; Griffiths, R. E.; Guzzo, L.; Hasinger, G.; Impey, C.; Kneib, J.-P.; Koda, J.; Koekemoer, A.; Lefevre, O.; Lilly, S.; Liu, C. T.; McCracken, H. J.; Massey, R.; Mellier, Y.; Miyazaki, S.; Mobasher, B.; Mould, J.; Norman, C.; Refregier, A.; Renzini, A.; Rhodes, J.; Rich, M.; Sanders, D. B.; Schiminovich, D.; Schinnerer, E.; Scodeggio, M.; Sheth, K.; Shopbell, P. L.; Taniguchi, Y.; Tyson, N. D.; Urry, C. M.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Vettolani, P.; White, S. D. M.; Yan, L.

I'm sure his input was considered by the other 50 people

>> No.5221783

>>5221742
post em

>> No.5221792

>>5221687
So in rejecting intelligent design he wasn't reflecting the opinion of the wider scientific community? You know his job description.
The same is true with Pluto. Those opinions are and were totally mainstream in science, this is not enough to call him a publicity whore.

>> No.5221795

>>5221786
>Barnett, J.

>> No.5221805

>>5221786
That's how big astronomy works now, 50 authors is fairly standard. The point is that he authored a paper that was cited, the claim that he was never cited was nothing but horseshit.

>> No.5221806

>>5221795
I see what you did.

>> No.5221807

>>5221792
SO that's why liberal popsci fans love their token black astronomer.

You know, its just disappointing, that the "black scientist" of america is so worthless, when there are so many actual black researchers doing actual research that popsci American never hears about.

>> No.5221818

>>5221770

And then he made a seemingly unrelated statement, your goddamn retard. Unless he was implying that the only reason you would object to "intelligent design" is for publicity, which if you agree with you should gtfo.

>> No.5221813

>>5221805
no the argument was that Tyson is just as worthy of attention as Sagan. Then I countered that Sagan had actually done worthwhile research and backed it up. I have still not seen anything Tyson is responsible for equating to his status.

>> No.5221822

>>5221813
>equating to his status.
so...basically you like Sagan more than Tyson? If that is the case then just say so. Don't try to back up such a subjective claim by putting scientists are "tiers" of coolness.

>> No.5221820

>>5221783
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=5584296725446855641&um=1&ie=UTF-
8&sa=X&ei=A5qVUOv_LoLD0QXtjoHIDg&ved=0CDgQzgIwAQ

>> No.5221823

>>5221807
>SO that's why liberal popsci fans love their token black astronomer.

What? Are you seriously implying intelligent design is only rejected by "liberals?"

>> No.5221833

>>5221813
You replied to my post which said nothing about Sagan. I don't care what your point was, my point was that the claim that Tyson was uncited is false, even his paper with only himself as an author is cited in at least a thesis likely more. It was obvious from my post that it had nothing to do with Sagan.

>> No.5221846

>>5221813
He is a science communicator, he is noteworthy because of his contributions to science outreach which is a valid task in itself.
Would Sagan be remembered the way he is if it wasn't for his outreach? Of course not. Fame does not equate to merit of research.

>> No.5221872

>>5221846
This.

Anyone that argues this is obviously working against the greater scientific community. Many, many of the most well-known scientists, including Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Nikola Tesla, Richard Dawkins, and Richard Feynman advocated making the expansion of the public's acceptance of science a foremost priority.

>> No.5221877

>>5221872
>asimov
>scientist

>tesla
>not reclusive elitist

reported for shitposting

>> No.5221885

>>5221877
Asimov was a biochemist.

>> No.5221892

>>5221877

Asimov WAS a scientist.

>> No.5221890

>>5221877
Asimov was a professor of biochemistry, you bloody moron.

>> No.5221893

>>5221877
Also, Tesla was the front researcher in the adoption of efficient transformers.

>> No.5221896

>affirmative action
wasn't Tyson practically hand picked by Sagan?

>> No.5221898

>>5221894
... >biochemistry
Not biology.

High school?

>> No.5221894

>>5221885
>biology
>science

enjoy your ban

>> No.5221901

>>5221184
>dat mustache

It gets me wet every time.

>> No.5221933

I'm really disappointed in you, /sci/.

>> No.5222076

>>5221933
The story of my life from the beginning to the bitter end.

>> No.5222594

>>5221896
sagan picked him when he was like 15. He saw a black kid that was into science, and as a flaming liberal pothead, he latched on.

>> No.5222662

I've never seen so much ownage in one thread before.

>> No.5222697

A major part of science is pedagogy. Our traditions as natural philosophers depend on passing on both the knowledge and the passion of science. Einstein, Sagen, Bill Nye, Asimov, are all in this tradition, as is Tyson. He plays an important role.
tl;dr: haters' gonna hate!

>> No.5222731

another quality post in /pol2/

>> No.5222739

He's been really good at public speaking, promoting science, and inspiring people.
In other words, his fucking job.

>> No.5222780

>>5222739
BUT HE SPEAKS SO WELL
-CHRIS ROCK DECRYING THE INABILITY OF WHITE MORONS TO SEE PAST A WELL ENUNCIATING BLACK MAN

>> No.5222807
File: 28 KB, 158x199, eatshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5222807

>>5221184
>implying he doesnt make people excited about science by being an edgy smart black guy
>implying this isnt one of the most important things he could be doing since this could lead to a larger public outcry for research funding
>implying you aren't some buttmad neckbeard

>> No.5222825

>>5221284
>NDT is the reason Reddit is full of edgy ATHEIST who want more government funded SCIENCE to make the world a better place

More funding for science is a bad thing?

>> No.5222829

>>5221537
>merits of my argument

You didn't make an argument.

>> No.5222833

Yeah um, hate to say it but, if we didn't have people who spoke to the public about science (ESPECIALLY science with little hope of benefitting us in our lifetimes) then fewer people would be willing to vote for policymakers that give money to science.

Who cares how many nature papers he has?

>> No.5222888

face it, he's the dr. phil of "science"

>> No.5223051

>>5221346
>Romanticizing it is bad because it creates a dogmatic view of scientific thought, which is contradictory to what science is.


No infact it helps remove dogmatic views created by religion

>> No.5223062

What has David Attenborough done for science? Probably not as much given that he hasn't got a phd, however in terms of popularising natural sciences, there are few that have done anywhere near as much.

>> No.5223080

>>5221894

i dont understand what the hate on biology is

i would like to see how you would survive without doctors

>> No.5223099

>>5223080
That doesn't make it a hard science.

>> No.5223015

>>5222888
Best analogy for N.Tyson ever made. Congrats bro, you won this thread.

>> No.5223104

>>5223099
go take biochem, genetics, bacteriology, and cell biology and say its a soft science

not all biologists count squirreles per acre

>> No.5223103

>>5223062

He made nature documentaries enjoyable...and made me shit on biology less. Zoology is fucking badass.

>> No.5223105

>>5221308

Fucking this. The only thing worse than the "GAWD'S NOT REAL" crowd are the raging autists who hate people getting interested in science and technology.

>> No.5223022
File: 89 KB, 672x499, 1335491172061.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5223022

>OP

>> No.5223109
File: 18 KB, 480x360, 251920791351312855loTMRd4c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5223109

>>5223099
you're right, the mathematical rigor and complex chemical mechanisms used in biological theories make it a hard science.

>> No.5223239

LE MEME REDDIT GUY LEL

>> No.5224256

Affirmative action man.

>> No.5224325
File: 716 KB, 998x1315, delagrasse.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5224325

He is a fabulous specimen, this one.

IMHO he's on the same level as michiho kaku, they're both media whores and successful as a result thereof. I don't respect hawkings either precisely for that reason. one's black, one's asian, one's a cripple. none of them made significant contributions to science. Neil's not a retatrd, he's nothing special either. he just knows how, and is willing to market himself.

>> No.5224353

It is always amazing to me to see "science people" shit directly into the mouths of those who actually do try to bring science into the foreground of awareness of regular people. "They haven't contributed anything major to science." Neither have you and thousands of other scientists.

"Fuck the people for not caring about science."

"Fuck the people trying to make people care about science."

...No, fuck you. You little rotten twit.

>> No.5224367

>>5221184
didn't he help get Pluto reclassified?

>> No.5224409

>>5224325
"hawkings never really contributed to science"

all of my lols

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=stephen+hawking&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sd
tp=

hawkins is pretty much the foremost black hole scholar of our time. He has dozens if not hundereds of published papers. Same goes for michio kaku and NDGT.

these people contributed more to science than you fag posting on /sci/ ohh lolol look at me posting on /sci/ i are so smart

FUCK YOU!

>> No.5224429

>>5224409

show me conclusive evidence that black holes actually exist.

show me that string theory is even headed in the right direction, or a relevant non-ambiguous non-falsifiable prediction that the theory has brought forth.

hot air, all of it.

>> No.5224478

>>5224429
>non-non-falsifiable

>> No.5224494

>>5221184
It's true though. The average black person at Harvard has an SAT score that would get them rejected from a state school if they were white or asian.
They had to lower exam standards at Harvard medical school because blacks just could never pass them.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a nice guy and a great orator but has he discovered anything? Has he invented anything? He's famous, like Carl Sagan, as a science popularizer but let's not pretend he's some kind of Einstein.

>> No.5224518

>>5224494
they do that for women in europe.

>> No.5224547

>>5224494

>They had to lower exam standards at Harvard medical school because blacks just could never pass them.

Is it that blacks could never pass it? Or just the "average" black that got accepted into harvard could never pass it?

>> No.5224577

>>5224494
source? this sounds like a fresh steaming pile of bullshit to me.

>> No.5224583

>>5224547
I'm sure there were blacks smart enough to pass the exam but the only people who failed the harvard medical school exams were black, and there were a lot of them.

>> No.5224903

>>5224429
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence

Stars orbiting a black hole in the center of our galaxy
http://www.eso.org/public/archives/videos/old_video/eso0226a.mpg

String theory, on the other hand, has no evidence and probably never will.