I'm not a fan of any of the scientists and engineers who have tried to get their 15 minutes of fame through popularizing these fields. If they were really all that prominent they would be far too busy doing their own research or teaching at the graduate level, instead of writing popular books, appearing on talk shows, and making speeches for tens of thousands of dollars.
I think the best spokesmen are writers and educators who know enough about science to ask scientists and engineers the right questions. They must also be able to understand the answers sufficiently well to write about it without making too many mistakes, where it is then hopefully thoroughly reviewed before publication.
Gee, I wonder what everybody did before mediocre scientists in the US and the UK discovered they could make a fortune in the entertainment industry instead. Perhaps they paid attention during science classes and didn't find it as "boring" as others did.
Only I didn't make those two statements in conjunction with each other. Now did I?
Which if those already mentioned in this thread would that be? A comedian who worked at Boeing? An undergraduate professor at Cornell? The curator of a planetarium?
Okay, we get that you don't approve of scientists who have the incredibly bad manners to get in front of a TV camera and make interesting documentaries (with companion books for the people who enjoy reading) in an effort to get the public interested in science. You've made it very clear that you think these people are just opportunistic losers.
But do you mind if the rest of us sit back and discuss these people - which ones we admire (or not) and why? Thanks.
Since it's not multiple choice, I had to vote Carl Sagan. I was in high school when Cosmos was first shown on PBS, and I was absolutely mesmerized. I learned so much from that series, and credit Sagan's explanation of why astrology is nonsense with curing me of any attachment to such things. Nowadays I can appreciate art based on astrology, but I don't think for a moment that horoscopes have the slightest shred of validity, and it would be really nice if people would stop confusing astronomy with astrology. The first is science. The second is crap.
What modern audiences tend not to realize is that back in the late '70s/early '80s, a lot of this was either new or ongoing, and so much that we now take for granted about the planets in the Solar System just wasn't known then. Nobody knew for sure what Voyager was going to find out next, and it was mysterious, suspenseful... and really exciting. Carl Sagan was one of the best at explaining these things, and did it so well that people were eager to know more.
Yes, Sagan was on TV a lot. There's no reason whatsoever that he should have been ashamed of appearing on Johnny Carson's show, or hosting documentaries, participating in symposia on nuclear winter, giving talks, being on radio shows, or writing books. Carl Sagan was a scientist, but also a teacher. And you can do all the science in the world - and it won't be a fraction as useful if hardly anyone ever gets to know about it.
When my grandmother died, his
Contact movie was in the theatres. I remember how lost I felt at that time, and remembering the "we are starstuff" themes of both Cosmos and Contact was comforting to me.
To those who have seen the Contact movie but haven't read the novel: Please read the novel. There are some parts of it that are profoundly different from what was in the movie, and it offers a lot for the reader to ponder.
If the poll had been multiple-choice, I would have also voted for David Attenborough. I loved both his documentary series I saw on PBS.
