Who is your favorite "bringer of science to the masses?"

[Kyriakos]

Hm, i did not know of this person, but:

From 2006 to 2011, he hosted the educational science television show NOVA ScienceNow on PBS and has been a frequent guest on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Jeopardy!. Tyson will be hosting Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey, a sequel to Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage television series starting March 2014.[2]

Not sure if it can be taken as a positive that he is mentioned to be a frequent guest in those comedy shows (?).

 

[Farm Boy]

I always rather liked Marty Stouffer.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Just because astronauts were test pilots and such instead of those with advanced scientific degrees hardly makes them "idiots".

I'll do it a second time for good measure:

Buzz Aldrin, PhD in Orbital Mechancis, 1963 (before he joined NASA)

A lot, if not most, of the current and past astronauts have advanced scientific degrees.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Can you name a single discovery made in space by any of the moon mission astronauts that couldn't have been done either remotely or by any random uneducated person?I admit, I have no idea if there are or aren't any, but if the answer is "no", then the astronauts were "scientifically irrelevant" at best.

Practically all of them as the rovers/landers/probes at the time were extremely limited. To single one discovery out - probably the most important was the discovery that the moon came from the Earth, as was only figured out on careful examination of all of the moon rocks they brought back. Probes of the time (and still to this day, actually) can only return grams of dust, whereas the astronauts brought back kilos. Grams of material are generally insufficient for the kinds of in-depth investigation that scientists like to perfrom.

Moreover, a good hiker could cover all of the ground the current Mars rovers have covered in the years they have been there in a few days and do many more experiments and investigations. Rovers and probes are invaluable and cheap compared to astronauts. But if doing lots of science on a planetary body is your primary goal, you can't beat boots on the ground.

And to again counter the odd notion that astronauts are test pilots first and foremost - they aren't. They are all very highly educated invididuals and serious scientists in their own right. Does Form think they sit up there and fiddle their thumbs? They do lots and lots of research and always have since the beginning of the program.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'll do it a second time for good measure:

Buzz Aldrin, PhD in Orbital Mechancis, 1963 (before he joined NASA)

A lot, if not most, of the current and past astronauts have advanced scientific degrees.

First, I am specifically referring to the original astronauts, not those who went up in later shuttle flights who were specifically chosen for their scientific expertise instead of their time in jet aircraft. Aldrin was the exception instead of the rule. And that exception only occurred once they finally relaxed their requirements regarding flight hours as a test pilot.

Second, one PhD among the rest of the Apollo astronauts, and which isn't even related to proper exploration of the moon by an expert in a related field, hardly constitutes a "lot".

The proper exploration of the moon was quite secondary. The Apollo program was primarily a PR and military mission as part of the absurd Cold War.

Practically all of them as the rovers/landers/probes at the time were extremely limited.

They certainly would not have been if the same amount of funds had been used to develop them. Many of the experts at the time thought that it was silly to send men to the moon when the resources could have been better spent sending probes instead.

But there was no valid reason why one of the three later Apollo astronauts, and one of the two who wnet to the surface of the moon, should not have been a highly qualified scientist instead of a fighter jock. They lost a number of incredibly valuable opportunities by doing so.

 

[gangleri2001]

Carl Sagan's Cosmos is an unbeatable masterpiece.

 

[Quackers]

It has to be David Attenborough for me. If I recall he and his television crew have discovered whole new species whilst filming documentaries over the years.

I cannot stand Brian Cox. There is something in his style which really grates on me. Can't explain that.

I've seen a few videos of Tyson so he is my 2nd pick.

Also why do we need a scientific literate population for a democracy? Or is it just a proxy for well educated?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Also why do we need a scientific literate population for a democracy?

You mean like not knowing enough about science to think AGW is a liberal conspiracy? That creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as evolution? That basic scientific research shouldn't be funded by the government? That non-whites are inherently inferior to whites?

And this is after most people in the US and Europe now spend at least 12 years in school...

 

[Quackers]

I have no clue about how we got to the moon, how my computer works or how a plane stays in the air. I am scientifically illiterate (not proud of it) but I am fully in support of scientific research because in understanding the universe we can reap a lot of benefits. On the other points I don't want to get into that, AWG and creationism is derailment territory.

 

[El_Machinae]

Also why do we need a scientific literate population for a democracy? Or is it just a proxy for well educated?

Kinda, but sometimes we need to make decisions based off of facts. So, things like 'extinctions' or 'vaccine scares' matter when the government is asked to take action.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Don't you think that attending school for at least 12 years, and having to spend at least a portion of it being bored by science teachers, had at least something to do with your opinion regarding the funding of basic scientific research, if not AGW and evolution?

But science isn't like baseball. Batting .333 on such fundamental questions isn't really all that good.

 

[Kyriakos]

But AGW is not (afaik) taught in any school, so why put it in the same sentence as creationism vs evolution theory?

 

[IglooDame]

But there was no valid reason why one of the three later Apollo astronauts, and one of the two who wnet to the surface of the moon, should not have been a highly qualified scientist instead of a fighter jock. They lost a number of incredibly valuable opportunities by doing so.

They lost one less opportunity than you think, or are you familiar with the name Harrison Schmitt?

 

[Quackers]

Don't you think that attending school for at least 12 years, and having to spend at least a portion of it being bored by science teachers, had at least something to do with your opinion regarding the funding of basic scientific research, if not AGW and evolution?

But science isn't like baseball. Batting .333 on such fundamental questions isn't really all that good.

School did not pique my interest in science at all and whether it should be funded. I would say the influence of technology (i get a lot of leisure out of it), science fiction and new health treatments (thinking about my self preservation in 50 years time) is far more important.

Anyway, my question is why is a scientific literate population required to be "necessary for a modern democracy to function". As I said, I have no clue about how my computer works and a million other things I take for granted and I do better than millions in my country by actually taking the time to vote!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

However, Neil deGrasse Tyson is my absolute least favorite scientist ever. I loathe and despise him with every atom of my being. He's a snob of the worst kind; got Pluto demoted;

He didn't "get Pluto demoted," he was just among the first to institutionalize it by choosing to update the Hayden Planetarium's equipment and not include it as a planet. The IAU decided, in light of the same evidence (Kuyiper Belt Objects) which Tyson referenced, that Pluto had more in common with these newly discovered objects than it did any planet, and so voted to reclassify it (or rather, to specifically define what a planet is, since no concrete definition had existed before then, which led to the strange situation of having anywhere between 9 and 15 planets in the Solar System, depending upon who was answering the question). Tyson had almost nothing to do with it.

Now it's standardized with actual definitions of things. That's what scientists do: they categorize things in order to better understand them and how they relate to one another. Pluto belongs where it is now.

and he genuinely hates anything and absolutely everything that is not non-fiction. Not to mention the constant bile he spews about anything that is fiction. Especially of the science and fantasy kind.

Again, not true. He rails against fiction which claims to be scientifically accurate but is not. He has no issue with blatantly fantastical fiction, and has said so repeatedly.

Not sure if it can be taken as a positive that he is mentioned to be a frequent guest in those comedy shows (?).

I regard it as a positive. He has a sense of humor, but remains a scientist. His appearances are always about scientific things (he's friends with Jon Stewart, another New Yorker, and so comes on his show a lot because they're friends, but also to talk science to people, sometimes to answer some science question Stewart might have), even when being humorous. Rather like Nye's career sometimes: comedic, but still grounded in reality. The funny nerd, as it were.

I cannot stand Brian Cox. There is something in his style which really grates on me. Can't explain that.

I like him when he's not on a documentary. Like on QI or something, just talking to normal people about science junk. He does have a strange way when narrating a program which makes him difficult to sit and watch/listen to for an hour. Maybe it's something about reading scripts or whatever.

Also why do we need a scientific literate population for a democracy? Or is it just a proxy for well educated?

Yeah that's part of it. Another is part of the fight between the anti-scientific forces which resist technology and discovery. Creationists, natural medicine people, anti-vaccine, and the like. Maybe that's not as much of an issue in the UK, but it is in the United States.

Another is that if we are to have representatives from among us who are expected to make responsible decisions about things, including funding for projects (not just research, but everyday funding for programs in the country/state/city), then those representatives need to be literate in those kinds of subjects, and science is more important than ever, and will become more so. We aren't ruled by technocrats who decide these things independent of The People, so our population needs to know about the state of things and appreciate science and what it gives us if it is to continue to enable it to function.

 

[TrafficJam]

Another is part of the fight between the anti-scientific forces which resist technology and discovery. Creationists, natural medicine people, anti-vaccine, and the like.

Probably way off topic but... I think it's as fair to call creationists "anti-science" as it is to call pro-choicers "anti-life."

As for the poll, I like deGrasse Tyson. He's very skilled at talking in a way that is engaging and easy to understand.

 

[Traitorfish]

Probably way off topic but... I think it's as fair to call creationists "anti-science" as it is to call pro-choicers "anti-life."

Creationists are literally situated in opposition to the scientific community, though. The abbreviation to "anti-science" is certainly rhetorical, but it's not simply the empty flourish that "anti-life" is.

 

[Farm Boy]

I always read "anti-life" as a somewhat bitter attempt to be more polite than "homicidal monster," when the latter is a relatively accurate encompassing of the speaker's take on the situation.

 

[Traitorfish]

nvrmnd

 

[Farm Boy]

Eh, not sure that most do. Surely the most belligerent and loud often enough, but I don't think that's really an accurate representation of people that would use that term. Most of whom are willing enough to attempt to balance relative differences in situations(be they incest, rape, health, whatever) rather than the far more, erm, simple stance of "no, no, never, no."