Lawrence Krauss On Scientists As Celebrities: Good For Science?

Lasrick writes: Lawrence Krauss explores the reasons why scientists such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Neil deGrasse Tyson became celebrities, and he shares his own experience as a best selling author and frequent guest on television programs like Jon Stewart's Daily Show. Krauss describes how public acclaim is often uncorrelated to scientific accomplishment and depends more on communication skills and personality traits. Nevertheless, he argues that the entire scientific community benefits when credible scientists gain a wider audience, and that celebrity is an opportunity that should not be squandered. Scientists who become recognizable have a chance and perhaps even a responsibility, which they have often exploited, to promote science literacy, combat scientific nonsense, motivate young people, and steer public policy discussions toward sound decision making wherever they can.

Comments

Yes.

[azav]

As in subject.

Re:Yes.

[ganjadude]

im amazed at how many people watch these guys (who i do enjoy) and assume that they now know everything about everything.

Re:Yes.

[Jason Levine]

I'd rather people listen to Carl Sagan or Niel deGrasse Tyson for their scientific advice than Dr. Oz, Jenny McCarthy, Michele Bachmann, or any of the shockingly large numbers of anti-science politicians.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, as in Carl Sagan and Niel deGrasse Tyson doing more harm than good every time they opened their big idiotic traps.

I seriously doubt anything they could say would be somehow more harmful than the religious nutjobs they are trying to silence.

It's best to understand what really does more harm than good these days.

Re:Yes.

[ArcadeMan]

Can't be too bad since an old man built one several thousand years ago with just his sons, bronze age tools, and possibly some servants/slaves.

Didn't you see the movie? It wasn't servants or slaves, it was fallen angels turned into stone creatures.

Re:Yes.

[mc6809e]

The problem is that too many people think "science" is whatever a person credentialed by some authority professes.

That's wrong.

"Science" is more properly a way of thinking. A "scientist" should be anyone willing to put the evidence offered by reality above intuitions, guesses, dogma, culture, and any other authority while also being open-minded to all possible explanations consistent with reality. It's a skepticism, even skepticism of one's own theories -- "a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" as Feynman put it.

Sometimes even credentialed scientists forget that.

Re:Yes.

[pigiron]

His first wife Lynne Margolis was the one with the real brains. I totally concur that "consciousness" is an emergent phenomenon first demonstrated by the simplest organisms that first reacted to light or chemicals in their environment. Self-awareness is a matter of degree and not an either/or proposition.

Re:Yes.

[pigiron]

I wasn't aware they are trying to silence anyone. (Well maybe Dyson is in calling for the shut down of research into genetic differences between human subgroups.)

Re:Yes.

[ArcadeMan]

No, not that kind of stone creatures.

p.s.: this was posted from 1992. Buy Bitcoins and sell them when they go above one thousand U.S. dollars each!

Re:Yes.

[DutchUncle]

No, as in Carl Sagan and Niel deGrasse Tyson doing more harm than good ...

Umm . . . How so? Sagan was melodramatic, but at least he gave mundanes the idea that people should get excited about complicated ideas. Tyson explains things well, speaks well, shows that one can be a science geek and entertaining all at the same time, and is a living poster child for rational thought (not to mention being a poster child against various forms of prejudice). What do you not like here?

Re:Yes.

[jedidiah]

The problems with GMOs don't end with "scientific truth". Not that ephemeral faith in a technology ever amounted to much. Our own recent history is littered with disasters of that kind.

"Arguing the science" is just a crass way of ignoring any of the other problems.

it also makes Tyson look like a cheap corporate tool.

It also exposes the obvious hubris and myopia of scientists.

Re:Yes.

[Chris Mattern]

That's twice you've gotten it wrong, now. "Star stuff". And, of course, we are. With the exception of the hydrongen atoms, almost every atom in our bodies was forged in the heart of an exploding star. Maybe you already knew that--but a lot of people don't, and many more never really stopped to think about. It really is amazing, you know.

Re:Yes.

[Hussman32]

Overall I'm fine with Tyson, but he has a bad habit of after explaining how science only advances if one questions, that we shouldn't question the science that is proven. Which is a rather serious flaw in science communication.

Re:Yes.

[Penguinisto]

Theories aside, you have a solid point.

Science celebrities (DeGrasse-Tyson, Sagan, etc) would be awesome proponents of science... if they would stop yapping politics. Seriously, scientific discovery and history are wonderful things. Enticing folks into wanting to know more about our world and universe is an awesome thing.

But... when you have some scientist-turned-celebrity yammering on and on and on about some purely political viewpoint (and worse, misrepresenting opposing ones and falling victim to even the most basic of logical fallacies), then it sucks.

A good example of a science celeb? Dr. Michio Kaku. Dude sticks to science for the most part, and doesn't try to recruit political acolytes to gain points, controversy, or notoriety.

Re:Yes.

[Penguinisto]

Bill Nye has been known to wander off into nutter territory on occasion, lumping all religious folks into the same category as the literal-6,000-year-old-Earth nutters that he opposes.

Re:Yes.

[phantomfive]

It's useful to divide science into two concepts:

Science the tool, which is often useful
Science the institution, which is always problematic (as are all power structures)

Adding on to your comment, a lot of times when people say, "Science says....." they mean "the institution says........"
What they really want to know is "what has the tool of science measured?"

Re:Yes.

[rtb61]

Scientist have political opinions too and they are just as entitled to express them as anyone else. I don't see why you would want to limit people's right to politically express themselves. Some are reasonable to limit like police and military in uniform, especially when armed are not entitled to express their political opinions and must first remove the uniform and weapons and express their political opinion as an individual and not as a military or police group.

In fact what we really do need is more scientists expressing their political opinions and backing them up with hard facts and of course working to dismantle the lies put out by professional politicians.

Re:Yes.

[BitterOak]

Can you please cite some examples of this harm? Thank you in advance.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't argue with that.

Same thing goes for all government employees, federal and state. No police, no teachers, no politicians, no lawyers (because without the government provided legal system they wouldn't have a job), etc. Also all government contractors. Nobody on welfare. Nobody who uses public infrastructure like roads or is defended by the US military from foreign attacks.

Yeah, basically no one should vote because they are all sucking off the federal tit.

Except pigiron. He lives in Galt's Gulch.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

Theories aside, you have a solid point.

Science celebrities (DeGrasse-Tyson, Sagan, etc) would be awesome proponents of science... if they would stop yapping politics.

And Politicians would be awesome if they quit trying to dictate science.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact what we really do need is more scientists expressing their political opinions and backing them up with hard facts and of course working to dismantle the lies put out by professional politicians.

Of course they often don't back up their opinions with facts. In fact, many of the "facts" they offer up are often myths themselves.

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2...
http://thefederalist.com/2014/...

Take a quick read to learn about some of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's penchant for mythology, then let's talk about whether or not he's expressing his political opinions and backing them up with hard facts.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

Scientist have political opinions too and they are just as entitled to express them as anyone else. I don't see why you would want to limit people's right to politically express themselves.

One really big reason that scientists should express themselves is that many understand that without a basic scientific aptitude by the citzenry, an entire nation can fall behind. That's part one

The other part is that people keep trying to inject politics into science

Injecting religion into science classes is politics, certainly as long as they are trying to do it by force of law. Oklahoma would probably be teaching us about Jesus Puppies (dinosaurs) and variable speed of light so they could fit time into the 4004 B.C.E dates their science book demands, if those cacahead scientists hadn't interfered, like those pesky kids in a Scooby-Doo cartoon, they might have gotten away with it.

AGW denialism is heavily politically based.

And yes, it would make life a lot easier for deniers if the asshole scientists would just shut up and learn their place, and stay out of the way of the politicians. But golly gosh, some of these Scientists care and have big mouths.

We'll have to deal with it them, until we make science illegal, and eliminate freedom of speech.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

The problems with GMOs don't end with "scientific truth".

That makes no sense. If they are scientifically proven safe, or if they are scientifically proven unsafe it's truth

Given your post, I suspect if they are proven unsafe, you'll cheer. If proven safe, you'll just deny it and continue your jeramiad.

Not that ephemeral faith in a technology ever amounted to much.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Our own recent history is littered with disasters of that kind.

It's littered with disasters of a more "truthy" sort also.

That's where you really go wrong. You blame scientists for the disasters brought on by politicians.

Do you figure that say, if the Scientists in the USA had not worked on nuclear weapons, that none would ever have been developed? The physics is pretty simple. The devil is in the details. But even that is just building infrastructure

But the physics exist regardless of the politics

"Arguing the science" is just a crass way of ignoring any of the other problems.

Where did you ever come up with the idea that the Scientists ingnore "any of the other proberlms"?

Sagan would appear to do all that you seem to want. He was concerned about nuclear winter, no small threat at the time. His Demon filled world book was full of social concern. Yes, based on science, but based also about what the world would be like if science was always squelched. There have been, in every age, people such as yourself who are willing to use the scientific advances of previous times, but rail on about anything new. What if your ilk was successful before the enlightenment?

it also makes Tyson look like a cheap corporate tool.

As opposed ti the cheap corporate and religio-political tools he's discussing with?

It also exposes the obvious hubris and myopia of scientists.

Well put. You show your own hubris and myopia. Next time you get an infection, let something other than sciience. Don'teat any food other than put non human altered foods. No hybrids either. Go without any science based creations for the rest of your life.

Y'all's arguments always boil down to "I disagree with you, so shut up"

Bite me, I have no intention of shutting up.

Re:Yes.

[Penguinisto]

And Politicians would be awesome if they quit trying to dictate science.

I agree.

Re:Yes.

[physicsphairy]

In fact what we really do need is more scientists expressing their political opinions and backing them up with hard facts and of course working to dismantle the lies put out by professional politicians.

A very nice thought, but logic never survives a descent into "my side vs. your side." As soon as scientists enter into the political sphere their points are no longer judged as factual conclusions but as their adopted positions, as one may rightly question whether it was their political conclusion or their scientific conclusion which they arrived at first.

If we don't want science to devolve into "our scientists say this!" and "oh, yeah, our scientists say this!" we need to keep scientists as far away from politics as possible. And, doing so makes it that much easier for politicans to go against their base, "Sorry, guys, I feel you, but the experts say it's like this, so I guess that's what we're going with."

(Try re-imagining that scenario as, "Sorry, guys, but the Democrat/Republican scientist says it's like this" to a Republican/Democrat audience.)

Re:Yes.

[TapeCutter]

Your mistake is not being alarmed by the facts.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's arguing that scientists shouldn't be entitled to express their political opinions. But the GP and I both think that, when a scientist takes the publicity they've earned by explaining science, and uses it to push a particular political position, it can detract from their popularisation of science.

I'll make a bit of a distinction here between, say, Carl Sagan's "Pale blue dot" speech, in which he uses some of the wonder of science to give some perspective to the political disagreements we take so seriously; and Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet about gun control, which had nothing to do with science, and was even factually inaccurate, doing nothing but pushing one side of a hot-button topic in US politics. The former only increases my respect for Carl Sagan; the latter slightly diminishes my (still considerable) respect for Neil deGrasse Tyson. (Note, this is despite me actually being on the same side of the gun debate as him.)

Re:Yes.

[ganjadude]

unprovoked attack in 200 years

Boston bombing???? 9/11????

Re:Yes.

[cbeaudry]

You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.

Re:Yes.

[visavillem]

You creation guys always try to put everything together. Evolution theory has nothing to say about the creation of life, it only describes the mechanism by which new species emerge. Nice strawman, btw....

Re:Yes.

[visavillem]

The article you linked left out the point Neill deGrasse Tyson was trying to make: the quote goes like this:

"After the 9/11 attacks, when President George W. Bush, in a speech aimed at distinguishing the U.S. from the Muslim fundamentalists, said, 'Our God is the God who named the stars.' The problem is two-thirds of all the stars that have names, have Arabic names. I don't think he knew this. This would confound the point that he was making." From The Amazing Meeting Keynote Speech, 2008. http://www.haydenplanetarium.o...

Re:Yes.

[tehcyder]

Your mistake is thinking AGW alarmism is not heavily politically based.

Classic reactionary false equivalence reasoning.

"You're a racist/misogynist/homophobe."

"Yes but there are black racists, misandrists and straight-haters too, so what's the problem?"

Re:Yes.

[tehcyder]

You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.

Yes, the fact is that pretty much all the Anti-Capitalist Scientists in the world who have looked at this are in a giant conspiracy with The Government and the all-powerful Green Lobby. Only a few brave voices in the wilderness (coincidentally funded by oil companies) dare to speak out against this Communist Plot.

Re:Yes.

[tehcyder]

Im a Christian with a passion for science and I really enjoy watching Neil talk about science, but it gets really cheesy when he makes the occasional snide remark about the Bible or religion when there isnt any hard science backing up that viewpoint.

It is up to people who believe in the Bible (for instance) to provide the "hard science" as to why it should be elevated above any other collection of words.

Re:Yes.

[cbeaudry]

Its allot more complicated than that.

You know, one thing I find particularly annoying is this Left, right hate, Republican, Democrate and everything that comes with it.

As an outsider (from Canada), its astonishing how easy it is for Americans to reduce everything to left, right. As if there is no middle ground, or nothing in between the 2.

Back to topic, I'm a Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic. I don't deny science, I research scientific papers, read them, draw conclusions, read others comments about them (when It sometimes goes beyond my understanding) and draw conclusions from that, to eventually make up my own opinion on the subject.

In my opinion, politics have been in climate science from the get go. This is not new, the whole modern field of climate science (late 80's to today) has been shaped around the IPCC and the main driver is how to blame the late 21st century warming on man. That is the whole goal of the IPCC, right in its charter. No other answer is possible, because the cause was pre-determined.

Because the IPCC is a political organisation and it had pre-determined the cause, the scientific community has been split and there is heavy debating.
On the one side, you have those that see everything in CO2 colored glasses (and CO2 is a factor, no doubt about it, but not the only one)
And on the other side, those whose research tell them, CO2 isnt the only factor, and sometimes might not even be the main driving factor.

Of course, there are nutjobs on both side. Scaremongers, alarmists and outright deniers of real science on the AGW side.
And there are religious nuts (the creationist, and anti-vaccene kind), science deniers, and interest based deniers on the anti-AGW side.

Whats dangerous, is only letting the pro AGW scientists speak in the media, because that cuts out other real scientists, with something important to contribute that are looking at the world with CO2 colored glasses.

Sorry for rambling on, but this issue, is just so much more complicated than left or right, denier and alarmist.

Re:Yes.

[tehcyder]

Bill Nye has been known to wander off into nutter territory on occasion, lumping all religious folks into the same category as the literal-6,000-year-old-Earth nutters that he opposes.

I don't think anyone who believes in God, Jesus and the Bible is in a position to call someone who takes the very foundation of the Biblical creation myth seriously a nutter.

Re:Yes.

[tehcyder]

"I could play "Stairway To Heaven" when I was 12. Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was 22. I think that says quite a lot".

Ade Edmonson from Bad News.

Re:Yes.

[cbeaudry]

Have a nice day.

Its obvious you don't care about the science, you only want to be right and win the debate.
You like to categorise everything in black and white, while the world is actually a whole lot of grey.

There is truth on both sides, but you ignore the side that doesn't agree with you.

The difference is, us sceptics (not the religious nut deniers), we read all the papers and as many articles are we can from both sides, we don't ignore anything. But then we point out where things just don't stand up to proper observations or things that just are plain old wrong. /s You are obviously on the righteous side.

Re:Yes.

[tehcyder]

I have a huge problem with the concept that Atheism is some sort of prerequisite to doing science. Useful or not, religion is a huge part of a lot of people's lives. The current rationalist approach drives very few people from religion but it does drive a lot of people further away from scientific acceptance. The worst part is the rationalists don't see that they are having the exact opposite effect that they desire.

If you're not being "rationalist" you're not doing science. Your argument makes exactly no sense.

Re:Yes.

[cusco]

From the viewpoint of residents of the Middle East, Central America, or the former Soviet Union those were just the tiniest of pin pricks of retaliation. If 15 million people had been killed in the World Trade Center attacks then it would have been similar to what the population of Iran experienced under our puppet the Shah. Knock off 40 million Americans and you'd be close to the percentage of the population of Central America killed under Reagan and Bush the Elected. There aren't an awful lot of populations around the world where an attack originating from them could be considered 'unprovoked'.

Re:Yes.

[Penguinisto]

I don't think anyone who believes in God, Jesus and the Bible is in a position to call someone who takes the very foundation of the Biblical creation myth seriously a nutter

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. The largest Christian denomination on the planet (Roman Catholicism, with ~1.4 billion adherents) not only has no problems at all with evolution, but has contributed to it by such means as originally theorizing what is now known as the Big Bang and contributing to the origins of what we know as genetics

Re:Yes.

[Kubla Kahhhn!]

Theories aside, you have a solid point.

Science celebrities (DeGrasse-Tyson, Sagan, etc) would be awesome proponents of science... if they would stop yapping politics. Seriously, scientific discovery and history are wonderful things. Enticing folks into wanting to know more about our world and universe is an awesome thing.

But... when you have some scientist-turned-celebrity yammering on and on and on about some purely political viewpoint (and worse, misrepresenting opposing ones and falling victim to even the most basic of logical fallacies), then it sucks.

A good example of a science celeb? Dr. Michio Kaku. Dude sticks to science for the most part, and doesn't try to recruit political acolytes to gain points, controversy, or notoriety.

But they don't exist in a vacuum. Politicians and religious leaders are shouting all this jargon, and both journalists and pseudo-journalists ask them questions about it, and someone has to respond to it. As the press has recently caught on about, the creationist movement cleverly gamed the system so that their pseudo-scientific views were on a par with mainstream scientific views-- "teach the controversy". There really isn't a controversy. If scientists somehow all refused to respond, then the public would be even more misled, I would think.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

Your mistake is thinking AGW alarmism is not heavily politically based.

Where on earth did you get that from what I posted?

There are idiots who believe that life on earth will end because of AGW. And some of the global warming advocates aren't terribly scientific.

And there is absolutely no question that some folks believe in AGW because adherents of another political party don't.

Which last time I checked, didn't have much influence on facts.

Your really silly argument is that because there is politics involved, on each side, means I have to choose a political answer.

Do you believe that debate or politics can determine scientific truth?

Here is some reading for you. It regards Lysenkoism:

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

The communists in Russia believed that certain sciences were not compatible with communist dogma. One of the heros of Communist dogma based science was Lysenko:

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

And despite the politicians deciding what the truth was, and making it the law of the land....

It was wrong. It was wrong, did I mention that the political system got it wrong? Wrong.

So while I'm not at all happy about dumbass liberals getting some of the details wrong, I'm really not accepting of conservatives thinking that something doesn't exist at all, because their owners and handlers told them what they think.

I don't deal much in politics. It might seem I'm a liberal because I skewer Card carrying neoconservatives. But that's only because yes, they do have a lot more whacky ideas, and unlike crystal chanters and tree huggers, they don't as often try to enforce their idiocy by the force of law.

In the end, I find that just like Lysenkoism and commiedogma got biology completely wrong, the neoconservative denial of some really basic physics is cut from the same cloth, regardless if liberal goofballs are right for the wrong reasons. Politics does not make for good science. Ever. But if there are opposite sides, one will be wrong, and the other right.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.

He's both a smartass - and right.

The big problem with weathershifting is that sometimes powerful dynasties are laid low. There are remnents of forests and towns under teh sands of the Sahara as exposed by Radar mapping:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech... This was likely the result of the end of the last glacial age. But the issues are the same. A tiny bit drier in Nebraska, and it will turn into a desert. There are old dunes not far below the topsoil in many parts:

http://articles.latimes.com/19...

Will it happen? I dunno. It might. Large scale weather shifts might topple America's dominance, and as far as I am concerned, patriotic Americans would do well to consider adverse possibilities. "It can't happen here" just doesn't sit well.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

Only a few brave voices in the wilderness (coincidentally funded by oil companies) dare to speak out against this Communist Plot.

Which ironically, is quite related to Lysenkoim.

Denialism is bound to ideology, and the denialists have kindred spirits in olde school communism.

Re:Yes.

[cbeaudry]

I got that from your post, because you posted it about "denialism" and did not make a comment about it being equally true for the AGW side.

Thats the problem, now, you use a more moderate tone and say there are extremist on both sides, but If I had not called you on it, would you have come back to make those statements?

So someone who has a leaning towards believing AGW dogma, because he's a lefty, because he's a greeny, because he just has no idea but figures "I have children, and CO2 must be a pollutant, they all say so, oh and look those who speak against AGW science are Koch brother shils and religious nutjobs".

When you categorise one side into 1 box, and you speak forcefully, you help make up the minds of those who dont really know anything on the subject and then they believe you and Greenpeace and Leonardo DiCaprio."

You also try to reduce it down to basic physics. As if we are all just too dumb to understand grade 3 science. As if it was that simple, when you have PHD Dr. in Science actively disagreeing on so many of the nuances. Its not black and white, its a whole lot of grey and there is still a mountain of information we just dont have.

Yes, CO2 IR trapping properties known as a fact. Sensitivity is also pretty well known at around 1C to 1.2C for a doubling of CO2.
That is taking into account nothing else but CO2.

When you start adding all other factors, the current theories that CO2 is a forcing for Water Vapor and that increased water vapor can only lead to more heat... that is not established as fact yet. Also, models cant simulate natural processes like ENSO and PDO and those models cannot be relied upon to make policy.

Recent studies showing:

- Thickness of Antarctic Ice his much higher than estimated
- Water vapor has not really changed in the last 20-30 years, shown by satellites (if it hasnt, than warming beyond 1.2C for doubling of CO2 just doesnt hold up)
- Global mean temps, though higher than 30 years ago, havent really increased in the last 18years and 4 months (the pause or hiatus), all the while CO2 has steadily climbed up. If CO2 has gone up, why have "the basic laws of physics" changed and temps no longer increase? There are 52 reasons and counting, all theories.
- Bias in temperature measurements left unchecked (In higher elevations, US western mountains, SNOTEL) University of Montana study.Only after a rigorous audit has this been found.

My point is, if you shut out those who dont believe in the dogma as if it was the word of god, you will only listen to the preachers. (the general you).

And that is what the media is doing now and what the politicians would want as well.

I can take your own phrase : And yes, it would make life a lot easier for alarmists if the asshole scientists would just shut up and learn their place, and stay out of the way of the politicians. But golly gosh, some of these Scientists care and have big mouths.

Re:Yes.

[Slashjones]

The 'extremists' are actually more consistent than the "All the nonsensical parts of my preferred holy book or parts I don't like are metaphorical!" people. I might like the WBC even less than I like the 'moderates', but I have to give them credit for being a bit more consistent. I just wish the 'moderate' religion apologists--who are apparently informed enough to realize that things like evolution are scientific fact, but too irrational to realize that magical sky daddies are ridiculous--would come to the conclusion that they have no rational reason to believe in magical sky daddies if they care about the truth. Or maybe they'll eventually reach the conclusion that the whole thing about god existing in their holy books was actually just metaphorical?

Re:Yes.

[Slashjones]

Maybe you should pick better spouses, then. Like one who is actually rational. If they have a problem with logical arguments, then I would back away very quickly.

Re:Yes.

[Ol Olsoc]

I got that from your post, because you posted it about "denialism" and did not make a comment about it being equally true for the AGW side.

That's the problem, now, you use a more moderate tone and say there are extremist on both sides, but If I had not called you on it, would you have come back to make those statements?

Denialism is a now generic term for people who refuse to accept generally accepted science. AGW, evolution, vaccinations, genetically modified food. While it is possible to have a liberal component to GMO, perhaps some to anti Vaxxers, we weren't discussing those. And we were discussing AGW. I know of no one on the liberal end of the spectrum who denies AGW.

So someone who has a leaning towards believing AGW dogma, because he's a lefty, because he's a greeny, because he just has no idea but figures "I have children, and CO2 must be a pollutant, they all say so, oh and look those who speak against AGW science are Koch brother shils and religious nutjobs".

When you categorise one side into 1 box, and you speak forcefully, you help make up the minds of those who dont really know anything on the subject and then they believe you and Greenpeace and Leonardo DiCaprio."

Some times that happens in a forum like this.

But there are people who lobby for the Koch brothers who pay politicians money, and seem to have some influence.They are getting paid for that influence, no?

It's getting a lot more difficult to tell these days, because now these people hide who they are by what is essentially money laundering through third party institutes.You can figure out the political motivation by the other lobbying they do.

http://www.scientificamerican....

These people hide who they are by what is essentially money laundering through third party institutes.You can figure out the political motivation by the other lobbying they do.

God, the courage of their convictions. Patriots too cowardly to even give their names hiding behind money launderers.

The power of bribery, and Baksheesh now rules. But I digress.

You also try to reduce it down to basic physics. As if we are all just too dumb to understand grade 3 science. As if it was that simple, when you have PHD Dr. in Science actively disagreeing on so many of the nuances.

I would love to discuss some physics with people. But I keep getting replies like "Mann is an asshole". Or such and such glacier is growing. Or "it's zero degrees outside today". That gets pretty old. after 10 years or so.

And yes, there are nuances, and yes, there are changes. And yes, there are things we have learned. The basic science hasn't been discarded at all.

There is so much documentation, that a basic model is given, and the denialists simply refuse to accept it.

And so far, I have not seen one single model of the failure of AGW.

Refusal to accept a model, and not supplying an alternative is ideology, not science.

Allow me to give a possible model here

An increase in the the average global temperature will cause an increase of evaporation of the oceans and other bodies of water. This will lead to to mechanisms that mitigate the effects of increased greenhouse gases. The collective albedo of the increased cloud cover will also counteract the increased energy retention by reflecting insolation out and away from the atmosphere.

See? Something basic, something even testable. Something provided by a person who doubts it will be proven true.

But you do know scientists do that don't you? competing hypothesis is a big part of what goes on behind the scenes. We're nowhere near as afraid o being proven wrong as politicians or politically inclined are. So until I get some models, I really don't take too seriously people who get their physics from politician

Re:Yes.

[RyoShin]

that we shouldn't question the science that is proven.

Where does he say this? I would not be surprised if he said something against deniers--climate-change for instance--but these kind of people aren't asking questions.

Imagine two people have a debate about what kind of fruit something nebulous is. Person A goes "It's round and has a warm color, so some type of citrus, and based on the size I'd say it's an orange." Person B goes "NO IT'S NOT" Person A asks B "Why do you think it's not an orange?" Person B responds "IT'S NOT AN ORANGE."

This is what many politicians and non-scientists due when presented with a scientifically-driven theory (scientific sense, not layman) that conflicts with one of their motivations (power, profit, etc.) These are "deniers". There are some, few of whom get any time on news channels, that are presented with the idea and go "Okay, but your original conclusions say that X would happen, but instead we are experiencing Y, something similar-but-different. How do you explain the difference?" These are people who ask questions, and those who ask a lot of questions like this are "skeptics". Good skeptics are useful in science (better if they can do their own science to show new results or invalidate old ones), and I would be quite surprised if NDG was talking about these kind of people.

Let me fix that for you...

[QuietLagoon]

... Krauss describes how public acclaim is often uncorrelated to scientific accomplishment and depends more on communication skills and personality traits. ...

Should be:

.
Krauss describes how public acclaim is often uncorrelated to accomplishment and depends more on communication skills and personality traits.

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[DutchUncle]

One word: Kardashian.

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[Chris Mattern]

He didn't say they had to be *good* personality traits...

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[frank_adrian314159]

Two words: boobs.

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[khallow]

God I hate the banality of modern pop culture

I found that my problems with modern pop culture went away when I stopped interacting with it.

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[visavillem]

So her body parts have more talent than she has? Parts of the sum are greater than the whole?

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[tehcyder]

God I hate the banality of modern pop culture

I found that my problems with modern pop culture went away when I stopped interacting with it.

The internet must be a very confusing place for you.

Re:Let me fix that for you...

[khallow]

The internet must be a very confusing place for you.

Why would you think that? For example, way back when, I looked up the Wikipedia page for Kim Kardassian and found out her primary career was "socialite". That was enough information for me to operate on the internet without confusion.

Sure

[tommeke100]

It's also good money
He's coming to Antwerp with his buddy Dawkins the end of January.
Places are 27 euro a pop, the golden circle is 40 euro.
To preach to the choir.

Re:Sure

[tehcyder]

It's also good money
He's coming to Antwerp with his buddy Dawkins the end of January.
Places are 27 euro a pop, the golden circle is 40 euro.
To preach to the choir.

Whereas I'm sure you spend most of your time and money going to lectures by people you hate, with views you despise or find ridiculous?

Uncorrelated?

[Alomex]

public acclaim is often uncorrelated to scientific accomplishment

I hate it when people use "uncorrelated" or "not correlated" to mean: the correlation coefficient isn't quite 1.0 but otherwise yeah, it's pretty high.

Re:Uncorrelated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax, it is only a fraction of people that use it incorrectly.

Yeah....

[dablow]

"...depends more on communication skills and personality traits"

Thank you captain obvious.....like pretty much everything else in life with the exception possibly being sports. Even, assholes and anti-social people don't tend to last very long.

Re:Yeah....

[Anon-Admin]

Well, Captain Obvious had to take a break from the hotels.com commercials. Guess he got a new job as a writer.

Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[l0ungeb0y]

Yes, anything that puts science to a face and makes it approachable, normal and something to be admired or respected is always a good thing. In the US, so much emphasis is put on wealth that we have seen an astronomical rise in MBAs and JDs while STEM programs have languished by comparison.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, anything that puts science to a face and makes it approachable, normal and something to be admired or respected is always a good thing.

Sure, but does making science into celebrity do that? Note: I'm not talking about Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman, who are safely dead. But Neil deGrasse Tyson is a braying jackass. He reduces belief in science, not increases it. He exhibits the problem with making celebrities of scientists: instead of approaching life with the humility of the scientist, he approaches life with the arrogance of a celebrity.

Hawking is an interesting case, as he's remained a real scientist even as he is well known enough to become a celebrity. His compelling personal story is a large part of that. He deserves kudos regardless. Sagan too. I'm afraid though that we are going to see more Tysons and fewer Hawkings and Sagans in the future.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[Jason Levine]

We also have seen a rise in glorifying "anti-science." Whether it be from the "we don't vaccinate because we don't support big pharma so we use homeopathy instead" crowd or from the "evolution can't be true because in Genesis the bible says the Earth was created 6,000 years ago" crowd. Both sides put down scientists as elite, "intellectual" (in an attempt to turn that into a bad term), and part of the "status quo" that must be overturned. If these groups got their way, all scientific progress (at least in the US) would grind to a halt. So any pro-science person who hits celebrity status helps to push against the anti-science tide.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[jedidiah]

He seems to misunderstand the philisophical basis of science. He also can't seem to avoid antagonizing those he needs to reach most. He's a sort of anti-Sagan.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[Hussman32]

According to one of the key decision makers at the time (Steve Jobs), the US lost manufacturing precisely because we lack STEM degrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[phantomfive]

I don't see that as 'anti-science,' I see it as anti-authority. If you talk to people who are anti-vaccers (it's tough, I know), they will often point to experiments to support their reasoning (naturalnews.com links to all kinds of questionable studies to support its inanity). They merely feel the scientists they trust are more correct than the scientists you trust.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[ArsonSmith]

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[david_thornley]

STEM programs aren't going to be made much more popular by having science celebrities. They'll be made more popular by making them into apparently better and more respected career choices. Science is a really tricky field to make a living in, and I don't think science celebrities do much to push engineering careers.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[tehcyder]

I don't see that as 'anti-science,' I see it as anti-authority. If you talk to people who are anti-vaccers (it's tough, I know), they will often point to experiments to support their reasoning (naturalnews.com links to all kinds of questionable studies to support its inanity). They merely feel the scientists they trust are more correct than the scientists you trust.

With the exception of those of the religious persuasion, most people do not think of their beliefs as irrational.

Apparently crazed neo-Nazis will quite happily defend their beliefs with apparently rational arguments.

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[phantomfive]

I don't know much about neo-nazis. But I've seen anti-vaxxer arguments essentially devolve into arguments like, "who do you trust more? The scientist who got published in The Lancet, or the establishment that tried to cover it up?" Anti-GMO people are similar.

Note this is different than 9/11 truthers, who for some reason always fall into arguments of ignorance, where they say something of the form, "how else could the building have fallen this way? I don't see a way, so it must have been explosives."

Re:Betteridge Is Wrong On This One

[RyoShin]

Yes, anything that puts science to a face and makes it approachable, normal and something to be admired or respected is always a good thing.

Cast your wishes carefully.

Any person who can be pointed to as someone both scientific and popular can be useful for the general population, but also creates an easy target. We've had stories on Slashdot before about companies/people trying to get as much personal e-mail as possible about scientists, not because they believe they can find evidence of forgery on the part of the scientist, but trolling for any kind of negative character trait they can parade into the press. Does he curse a lot? Like hiring prostitutes? Is a closet homosexual? Doesn't hold the door open for women? Once an accusation sticks (even a false one), then they only have to use a broad brush to paint those traits on all like-minded scientists; sadly, our population will eat. It. Up.

I guarantee you there are more than a few people who have the personal goal of digging up heavy dirt on Neil deGrasse Tyson. If they could find evidence of financial fraud, a torrid love affair, or (jackpot!) pedophilia it would spread across our 24/7 news networks like wild fire.

If we had a number of scientists highly-respected by the public, such tactics wouldn't be as useful, but right now in the general public there are only a half-dozen or so. If someone polled random folks on the street you would likely get few more answers than Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye

Scientists are human beings too

[Taco Cowboy]

Human beings when become celebrities will get their ego 'floated' when they find themselves becoming celebrities, and of course, scientists are no different

We can see how many of the celebrities have fumbled, sport stars, politicians, movie stars, and yes, even religious leaders, they too fumbled

They act different, the content of their speeches have also changed and become boastful. Most have forgotten what 'humble' feel like, and truth does not matter anymore

And truth is what Science is all about - the search for truth

Once truth is no longer important, then no matter how grandiose a scientific essay has been produced, it in itself has lost all its value

Remember, Scientists are humans too

Re:Scientists are human beings too

[NeutronCowboy]

No. If you want Truth, Philosophy is down the hall. Science is about collecting data, creating models of the world around us, and testing the models for usefulness and accuracy.

Re:Scientists are human beings too

[jedidiah]

It's stupid to speak of science in terms of "truth" because science is never anything but a best guess. This undermines the idea that scientists are not Bishops in lab coats and another variation on the same invallid appeals to authority that dominate other important ideas.

Declaring "truth" requires more certainty than an honest scientist should ever have.

It is more the domain of religion.

Re:Scientists are human beings too

[ceoyoyo]

It is wrong to say science seeks truth, because it gives a false impression of what science is. Science looks for theories that make the most accurate predictions. If a particular theory tuns out to have problems, that's part of the process of finding one that does.

Too many people, including a lot of not-so-good scientists, regard "scientific truth" as something that actually exists. Some experiment, or a journal article, or a hundred years of experience seems to show something, therefore it's true. Way too many people also insist that science is just another kind of religion.

Re:Scientists are human beings too

[Lab Rat Jason]

tell that to the theoretical physicists.

Re:Scientists are human beings too

[DutchUncle]

Unfortunately, when scientist and engineers say things like "science is never anything but a best guess", meaning to be modest about how humans can at best asymptotically approach the truths about reality, anti-science and religionists pounce and say "See? They admit they don't know for certain. WE know for certain, so WE have a better answer." Besides, it's a lot better than a "best guess", it's a carefully researched and analyzed best fit solution. Plus, XKCD. http://xkcd.com/54/

Re:Scientists are human beings too

[Jason Levine]

Does science ever get the 100% truth? Probably not. What science does do, though, is get closer and closer to the truth in each refinement of each theory until we get to the point where we have, for all intents and purposes reached the truth. For example, we can describe the relativistic motion of spacecraft from launch to multiple planetary slingshots (accounting for the planet's motions as well) and to the spacecraft's destination. Furthermore, we can calculate just what kind of thrust the spacecraft will need to provide and in which direction to enter into and maintain orbit.

No, this isn't 100% "truth" about orbital mechanics and I'm sure we'll get closer to "100% truth" in the future, but where we are is extremely impressive. It's close enough that we were able to land a craft on a comet and will soon have another craft circling Pluto. It wasn't too long ago that people were debating whether or not the planets moved on fixed plates. Now we can calculate their orbits years in advance.

Of course it's good for society

[deathcloset]

It places them in a position of authority and if they are indeed good scientists allows the public's most common fallacy of appeal to authority to become a defacto appeal to reason.

Re:Of course it's good for society

[dablow]

Wrong.

You would have had a valid point if in fact scientists where infallible, but since they are human, they are indeed not.

For example: the researcher who started the whole anti-vac movement.

Re:Of course it's good for society

[ceoyoyo]

You mean the physician (not a scientist) who started the anti-vax movement?

Other than the bad example, your point is good.

Re:Of course it's good for society

[Ottibus]

You mean the physician (not a scientist) who started the anti-vax movement?

Andrew Wakefield started the MMR controvesy by publishing a paper describing research that linked MMR to various negative outcomes. This clearly marks him out as a scientist not just a physician. This paper has since be shown to be both incorrect and fraudulent, so he was equally clearly an immoral person who used science to gain popularity.

As well as being pedantic I am also trying to make the serious point that scientists who become celebrities are not necessarily good scientists.

Re:Of course it's good for society

[visavillem]

Problem is, that this self-correcting mechanism does not always reach out from the "inner circle" of the scientists. So in the end the average Joe will believe a guy/gal who wrote a better book/made a better movie. And sometimes it's not the true science that reaches the people (Ancient aliens, Homeopathy, anti-vaccines movement, creationism etc.). Scientists know it's a load of male bovine excrement, but because the Joe Average does not read the science magazines, he will believe this. And in the end, he's really the one who's votes will count (there are just a lot more of them than scientists).

Re:Of course it's good for society

[ceoyoyo]

If publishing a paper is the requirement to be a scientist, it's not surprising that stuff like what Wakefield pulled gets by. Wakefield was trained as a physician, not a scientist. His "research" was conducted unethically, on children, without approval. It's generally believed now that the whole thing was a fraud perpetrated to boost his interest in a competing vaccine company.

Wakefield was trained as a physician and operated as a con man. He wasn't a scientist. I agree with you that scientist-celebrities aren't necessarily the best scientists. Especially the "scientist"-celebrities. Part of the problem is that many of them aren't scientists at all, but are perceived that way because people have the strangest criteria for dubbing someone a scientist.

Re:Of course it's good for society

[david_thornley]

Wakefield published a fraudulent paper based on unethical research, and started the anti-vaccination madness. He was trying to create a market for thimerosal-free vaccines, which he had a financial interest in.

If Wakefield were perceived as infallible, there would be no anti-vaccination movement in the US, because vaccines in developed countries are thimerosal-free now (I believe it's still used in less developed areas, where a vaccine might have to be stored for a long time in an uncontrolled environment). If scientists were perceived as infallible, there would be no anti-vaccination movement, because the scientific community was pretty much unanimous in considering Wakefield a liar.

scientific stars wannabe

[lorinc]

The problem, is that scientific research is now like music was in the 80s. People are much more interesting in writing the article that will be cited 1k times, like people were looking to write that single getting sold 1M times, than actually improving common knowledge.

Well at least in computer vision, I do have this impression.

Re:scientific stars wannabe

[dablow]

Unfortunately improving common knowledge does not always pay well.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is hardly a celebrity

[BarbaraHudson]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a celebrity,
No matter how much you want to think so.
To the Joe on the street
Or the cop on the beat
It's "Joe Tyson??? Who's that schmoe?"

Burma Shave

Just another form of scientific contribution

[Stuntmonkey]

I would put communication onto a list of activities that move the science enterprise forward, but tend to be undervalued compared with producing new research results. Great popularizers like Sagan, and great writers like Arthur Clarke, have done an enormous amount to inspire and motivate people.

Another group of undervalued people are the tools builders. Things like ArXiv, Mathematica, and so on improve the effectiveness of every researcher by a little bit, and their cumulative impact is enormous but we tend not to recognize them.

Re:Just another form of scientific contribution

[ceoyoyo]

A list of the most highly cited papers was released recently. All the top papers were tools and techniques. Discoveries like the structure of DNA were well down the list.

The tool builders get recognized pretty well where it counts.

Re:Just another form of scientific contribution

[houghi]

If you look at science as a product, these guys are the Marketing Department. And yes, we need them.

Kids are now not just thinking about going not X-Factor or whatever to become famous, now science is a way to do that too.

Mind you, 99.999% will not become famous, regardless.

I would rather have

[xaotikdesigns]

Scientists become celebrities than celebrities becoming scientists (Jenny McCarthy for one)...

Re:I would rather have

[Ottibus]

Scientists become celebrities than celebrities becoming scientists

With the possible exception of Brian May :)

The guy who knows everything

[Marginal Coward]

Having a real scientist as a TV spokesmodel isn't all bad, but it just seems to be terribly overdone. I get tired of seeing folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson and especially Michio Kaku (who thankfully was omitted from TFS) on TV. When they appear, each is presented as "the guy who knows everything." Micho Kaku has a particularly smug, know-it-all, condescending presentation that grows old in light of his seeming omnipresence on the science-related channels.

The fact is, though, that true scientists are specialists who know a great deal about their particular specialty but certainly don't "know everything." At best, they have a strong education in general science topics such as physics and chemistry and likely are extremely smart. And if they really know everything, they oughtta be on Jeopardy. So give us Ken Jennings instead.

Hopefully, what these folks gain in celebrity among the public by playing this game is equaled by the stature they lose among their fellow scientists. I'm not a scientist (and don't even play one on TV), but if I were, I certainly would giggle each time I saw one of these guys spouting off about something.

Re:The guy who knows everything

[zAPPzAPP]

To be fair, the topics they get to speak about are usually very basic, so if they are related to their fields at all, I guess they DO know those things.

For me, this is why I can't really stand watching them:
I have never seen them talk about anything really new, or interesting.
In every TV segment, they start off from zero and never get very far, or into much detail.
I guess as actual scientists they do have their own research projects, or at least interests in more advanced topics. It would be interesting to hear them talk about that once in while. Or in general focus more on the open questions where the current science is done.

Re:The guy who knows everything

[Marginal Coward]

I just saw a "Nova" episode about the Large Hadron Collider. And sure enough, there he was: Michio Kaku. I knew he wandered shows on the Discovery and Science channels like a lost soul wandering Hades, but we can't escape him even on PBS!

He immediately made some comment to the effect that GPS could be used to "locate your car within inches". Actually, Mr. Know It All, it's meters, not inches...

Say what?

[93 Escort Wagon]

... scientists such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Neil deGrasse Tyson ...

One of these names is not like the others,
One of these names just doesn't belong.
Can you tell me which name is not like the others,
Before I finish this song?

(okay, maybe it should be "two of these names...")

Re:Say what?

[gman003]

Let's see here:
Albert Einstein - Nobel-winning physicist
Richard Feynman - Nobel-winning physicist, later used his celebrity power to popularize physics through his books
Carl Sagan - Astrophysicist (PhD thesis was "Physical Study of Planets", much of his work involved determining environmental conditions on other planets and moons), simultaneously was a television host and science celebrity
Stephen Hawking - Physicist (PhD thesis was on singularities in spacetime), author, and occasionally played himself on TV.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysicist (PhD thesis was on star distribution in the galactic bulge), author, television host and science celebrity.

Well, Einstein's the only one who (AFAIK) was not a major pop writer. Tyson's the only one with a Twitter feed. Hawking's the only one with a physical disability, and Feynman was the only one to do engineering as well as science. So I'm actually not sure who you think is different from all the others.

Re:Say what?

[radarskiy]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the only one that has been married just once.

Re:Say what?

[Monkey-Man2000]

Why is this modded informative? It is neither informative or even interesting. I guess mods are back on crack like the good old days.

Re:Say what?

[david_thornley]

Einstein wrote some popular science. His book "Relativity" is an excellent introduction to the subject, at least Special Relativity.

It's not about the presenter.

[sbaker]

Einstein and Feynman were both nobel prize winners and Hawkins has Sir Isaac Newton's mathematics chair - we probably shouldn't downplay their achievements!

Carl Sagan was on the slippery slope. He certainly did some good science - but he's hardly up there with the previous three. Tyson has a few decent papers to his name, and his career isn't over yet - but I don't think he's coming close to the others in terms of science achievements.

Einstein was the world's worst communicator. Feynman and Hawkins are better - Sagan was astounding and Tyson may be yet better.

I suppose we might be concerned that there is a pattern here. We're taking people who are better communicators in preference to those who really know their stuff.

But honestly, does it matter? The presenter of a show reads from a script - (s)he is basically an actor. If the author of the script sticks to an accurate portrayal of what's written by the hard-core scientists - then why not pick an engaging personality to present it to us?

The critical part of the cycle is the person who decides WHICH science gets discussed. De Grasse Tyson is often talking about tacheons, wormholes and white holes and other claptrap that's horribly speculative, wildly unusupported, and very probably untrue. As an astrophysicist, he should know better - but as a TV presenter, he does a reasonable job of reading the script.

I'd prefer to have a complete non-scientist who is a supreme communicator be given a script written by good script writers from material handed to them by the hard core scientists behind the scenes - than to rely on a lower-tier scientist (or a high-tier scientist with poor communications skills) to do the entire job.

    -- Steve

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[quantaman]

I'd prefer to have a complete non-scientist who is a supreme communicator be given a script written by good script writers from material handed to them by the hard core scientists behind the scenes - than to rely on a lower-tier scientist (or a high-tier scientist with poor communications skills) to do the entire job.

I see three problems with this.

The first is trust, and science is all about trust and credibility. It doesn't matter how good the actor is, if the audience knows they're just reading a script then they're not going to have the same credibility as a real scientist who really understands what they're talking about. I mean Morgan Freeman is a great actor with an unreal voice, but I don't think he could have done Cosmos as well as Tyson.

The second problem is that actor is useless outside the show, one of the advantages of giving people like Tyson and Sagan a public profile is they're in a position to speak on behalf of science outside the show. Your actor can narrate a documentary, but you're never going to be able to train them well enough to match go up against a kook on a panel show.

Finally if you invest enough scientific credibility into that actor you really need to vet the actor since they don't have a scientific career to fall back on when the show is over. Do you really want that pretty face you've taught millions to trust to start shilling magic water when they're in desperate need of a paycheck?

It's still doable and useful in some situations, but for a mass outreach scientific show I think a real scientist is preferable.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[Livius]

The presenter of a show reads from a script - (s)he is basically an actor.

That may be true of the narrator of a documentary, but for anyone presenting live it matters whether they know the science or not.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[blueg3]

It depends. You can get anyone to read a script on a recorded television show, but that's usually not the point. You can't really do an interesting interview with someone who is a good communicator but isn't familiar with the subject matter.

De Grasse Tyson is often talking about tacheons, wormholes and white holes and other claptrap that's horribly speculative, wildly unusupported, and very probably untrue.

It depends. All of those are supported by theory. They're only "speculative" in that they are permitted by theory but have not been observed and, as a result, it's an interesting question as to whether or not they exist. (If they don't or can't exist, can that information be used to improve our theory?) So, depending on the context and what you say about them, they are potentially interesting lines of discussion, because they offer insight into what (some) physicists are still looking in to.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[phantomfive]

I'd prefer to have a complete non-scientist who is a supreme communicator be given a script written by good script writers from material handed to them by the hard core scientists behind the scenes - than to rely on a lower-tier scientist (or a high-tier scientist with poor communications skills) to do the entire job.

Oh, now you're asking for David Attenborough.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[Prune]

I'm just glad they didn't add Penrose to that list. He's really lost his marbles in his old age -- such a shame.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Patrick Stewart and Morgan Freeman also rock as narrators for documentaries too, although Attenborough is probably the TOP of the list. I search torrents by his name all the time!

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Like Mike Huckabee promoting a "hidden Biblical cure" for cancer? This is anoher reason we need TYSON / NYE 2016, I'm sick and tired of living under some invisible sky-god that only talks to people that seem to really just hate, kill, want to control everything, and firmly believe they can legislate over biology.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[justthinkit]

Einstein was the world's worst communicator.

Try some Edward Witten

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[Darinbob]

Einstein was a huge celebrity though. What I think is interesting is how society decides who is or isn't the celebrity. Sure, Einstein was a genius with groundbreaking theory, but then so were many of his peers. What about the other Nobel prize winners? Ok, those who didn't live in America weren't going to be easy for be famous to Americans, or elsewhere in the world if not on the movie reels; some cooperated with the Nazis; some were on top secret projects; etc. But overall it's like American decided that it needed one and only one celebrity genius. The finger of fate is fickle.

Hawking though probably would never be a celebrity if he was able bodied. The overcoming adversity aspect I think is what makes the public interested. The general public hasn't even heard of the prizes he's won.

Some of these are like other celebrities, they're famous because they're already famous. Ie, why do people know who Hawking is? Because he appeared on ST:TNG and Big Bang Theory, but why did he appear on those shows except that he was already famous.. Why did Tyson get the Cosmos spot, because he was already well known.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[GoddersUK]

Actually David Attenborough graduated from Cambridge with a degree in natural sciences (specialising in geology and zoology). And, actually, I think that he makes for a far better model of science communicator than these modern loud mouths/wannabe philosophers.

Re:It's not about the presenter.

[phantomfive]

And, actually, I think that he makes for a far better model of science communicator than these modern loud mouths/wannabe philosophers.

Without a doubt.

It is good for science at large. Example:

[jpellino]

Ask some random person to name another WHOI scientist after Bob Ballard. Thought so. Even when he first started splitting his time between WHOI and NatGeo - many of the established scientists in the field could not comprehend why he would want to go on TV and gas on about ocean science. It was like he was speaking another language. After he got the vents stuff out in the mainstream, I happened to be in Woods Hole and saw that they had finally put together a WHOI exhibit on the work that was done. Understand that WHOI proper has always been a locked-down place with nothing much public. NOAA Fisheries has an exhibit and for a long time you could pop into MBL and see what was going on - within reason - used to borrow their labs to sort out alga specimens. So after going through the new exhibit in an old church at the top end of Water St., I was talking to someone who has a business in town and remarked that it was nice to have something permanent for the public about WHOI, good for them. Punchline? She told me the church was merely rented for the exhibit. Arrrrgggghhhh!

Re:consider the alternatives

[Jason Levine]

I'd rather have more Justin Beibers and Paris Hiltons - empty heads but easily ignored and ultimately harmless - than more Jenny McCarthys and Senator Marco Rubios (the latter of which said he couldn't be sure that the Earth wasn't 6,000 years old because he's not a scientist).

Classic Astronomer Graph

[Anonymous Coward]

This graph is a joke, but it's highly relevant.

Source: http://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/000943.shtml

Key problem:people are looking for a yes/no answer

[king neckbeard]

If I had to guess, there are both positive and negative effects on celebrities as scientists, dependent upon enough factors that there's no good way to make a headline. The effects a celebrity scientist has are dependent upon why people identify with them, how the public reacts, and of course what the scientist does. If the results of celebrity scientists are making cool posters for dorm rooms and/or being eye candy, then yeah, they probably aren't doing much for it. But, if they are testifying before Congress to act on scientific data or fund research, or encouraging people to improve their critical thinking skills, they are immensely helpful. It's also important that they stay on that side of the line. Discovery Channel and shows on the Discovery Channel have had issues with that.

If you really want to advance scientific literacy, you're going to have to dispel the idea that it's common for something to have virtually only positives or only negatives, as in reality, those kinds of things are quite rare.

Re:Michio Kaku

[nucrash]

I read the Future of the Mind and have to say that I am inspired to direct my studies towards neurology and man-machine interfaces as well as man-machine interface security.

I introduced myself to Michio Kaku late one night when I couldn't get any sleep. After Bill Nye's challenge to have Creationists stop hurting their children by teaching Creationism to them, I started looking through other postings to the BigThink Channel on Youtube. After seeing a 45 minute lecture on Physics, I thought I found myself hours later, wide awake at 5am, cursing him for being too interesting.

As far as the subject of celebrity scientists, we need idols who aren't airheads. Someone who can inspire people to work harder, strive to be more intelligent, I fail to see the harm. Who else should we be inspired by? Peter Griffen? Homer Simpson? Paris Hilton? Justin Bieber?

Press is good

[Atrox666]

While people who move the course of humanity forward make less than people who chase balls for a living, more press is needed badly.
Imagine all the STEM people disappeared, humanity may collapse.

Imagine all the athletes disappeared...not really a problem.

Re:Press is good

[kogut]

Imagine all the athletes disappeared...not really a problem.

Don't discount the value of sports on a culture. Athletic achievement has been celebrated for pretty much the history of humanity, and has been the focus of much economic investment. Eliminate that at your own peril. There may actually be something important going on .

But to your point, I think the issue is that the benefits to an end-consumer of a football game are direct, timely, and transparent. The benefits to an end-consumer from scientific achivement are generally highly indirect, often delayed by years or generations from the initial discovery, and opaque. It's generally the engineers/businessmen who ultimately make the direct connection to the consumer. Just the way it is.

Re:Press is good

[iggymanz]

Professional athletes could disappear and we'd still have amateurs training for Olympics and local school or park system games. I think it would be better for society to focus on those things, which would be more like sports in most of history, rather than professional sports.

If by celebrity we mean...

[mr_mischief]

If by celebrity we mean that good scientists get famous for actual research and get patronage to run their labs free of government funding, then hell yes.

If by celebrity we mean that their career as a "Scientist" means to be an advocate for one bit of research over others even well outside their own work, then probably not.

Re:Key problem:people are looking for a yes/no ans

[kogut]

If the results of celebrity scientists are making cool posters for dorm rooms and/or being eye candy, then yeah, they probably aren't doing much for it.

Don't discount the indirect effects of culture. Cool posters that place cultural value upon educational or scientific achivement may have value in guiding the pursuits of younger generations.

I remember a section from one of Feynman's books where he visited the home of someone, and a woman in the household exlaimed she was thrilled to have been visited by a general *and* a professor both in one day. I'd argue that that's a household that places a premium on education relative to other cultural influences. (maybe also a premium on the military, but that's another thread).

Tyson's TV skills

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I watched an older show with Neil, he definitely has either had some coaching or something as he was almost as bad as W Bush in the first episode. It was some other science show on Netflix, and his ability to read the teleprompter was horrid. LOL just like a professor's first big class or recording. Luckily he has gotten 1000x better with it all, and now is just as good of a speaker as he is a scientist.

TYSON / NYE 2016! Bring science to the Whitehouse! Write them in, save humanity from itself and superstition!

my 2 cents

[surd1618]

Scientists who become recognizable have a chance and perhaps even a responsibility, which they have often exploited, to promote science literacy...

I just want to say, that I don't think there's any responsibility implied here. Generally, someone can be as clever as they like, and not do anything for anyone else, and it's not their problem. There's maybe no reason not to, perhaps since they would be promoting the way they make a living; maybe I just don't like the way this was phrased.

Your ignorance is complete!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's twice you've gotten it wrong, now. "Star stuff". And, of course, we are. With the exception of the hydrongen atoms, almost every atom in our bodies was forged in the heart of an exploding star. Maybe you already knew that--but a lot of people don't, and many more never really stopped to think about. It really is amazing, you know.

Oh my GOODNESS. Do NOT correct someone if you're going to say something even less correct. Exploding stars - supernovae - produce everything on the periodic table after Iron (element 26). Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen happen as part of regular nuclear burning. They are certainly dispersed by a supernova but regular nuclear burning inside of a star.

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

I repeat: If you want to correct someone GET IT RIGHT.

Re:Your ignorance is complete!!!!

[Pausanias]

Inaccuracy is par for the course on Slashdot. But GP got the spirit of the law right, if not the letter of it.

Re:Your ignorance is complete!!!!

[bledri]

That's twice you've gotten it wrong, now. "Star stuff". And, of course, we are. With the exception of the hydrongen atoms, almost every atom in our bodies was forged in the heart of an exploding star. Maybe you already knew that--but a lot of people don't, and many more never really stopped to think about. It really is amazing, you know.

Oh my GOODNESS. Do NOT correct someone if you're going to say something even less correct. Exploding stars - supernovae - produce everything on the periodic table after Iron (element 26). Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen happen as part of regular nuclear burning. They are certainly dispersed by a supernova but regular nuclear burning inside of a star.

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

I repeat: If you want to correct someone GET IT RIGHT.

Fuck sake. Yes, the elements from hydrogen up to iron are produced via nuclear processes in "normal" star. But none of it ended up in us unless the motherfucker exploded you pedantic fuck.

Re:Your ignorance is complete!!!!

[visavillem]

.. nuclear burning inside of a star..

Well, since you are correcting people here, let me correct you too: burning is an exothermic oxidation process, by which oxygen forms an oxide with the burning element and energy in the form of heat is released. What goes on inside a star is called a nuclear fusion, where two atoms of one element fuse together to form a new element. When this process takes place between elements lighter than iron, energy is released.

I repeat: If you want to correct someone GET IT RIGHT

Vietnam depicted as a "fumble" in the jungle

[epine]

We can see how many of the celebrities have fumbled, sport stars, politicians, movie stars, and yes, even religious leaders, they too fumbled.

Fumbled?

Either that's bait, or you haven't dialed in lately with your trusty USR to the acerbic backwash concerning America's popular reverence for all things Reverend.

The second such category is of slightly more importance, because it consists of the editors, producers, publicists, and a host of other media riffraff who allowed Falwell to prove, almost every week, that there is no vileness that cannot be freely uttered by a man whose name is prefaced with the word ''Reverend''. Try this: Call a TV station and tell them that you know the Antichrist is already on earth and is an adult Jewish male. See how far you get. Then try the same thing and add that you are the Rev. Jim-Bob Vermin.

Falwell went much further than his mad 1999 assertion about the Jewish Antichrist. In the time immediately following the assault by religious fascism on American civil society in September 2001, he used his regular indulgence on the airwaves to commit treason. Entirely exculpating the suicide-murderers, he asserted that their acts were a divine punishment of the United States. Again, I ask you to imagine how such a person would be treated if he were not supposedly a man of faith.

Here Falwell plays into the meme (strangely accepted by many of faith) of God as a crypto dominatrix who delivers his retribution shrouded in the most complete and thorough back story conceivable about why the perpetrators might have acted on ordinary human motives (these acts, nevertheless, remaining somehow entirely transparent in their divine origin to suitably entitled religious figures).

I personally have to concur with Hitchens final decree on Falwell: "If you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox."

I guess it's for this reason that the relief scene in Bull Durham (SPOILER: theraindelayinvlveshoomanagenci) is less than completely transparent to the off-screen local yokels, who don't the least suspect human motives when a deluge strikes right between the bullpens and doesn't wet a single stalk of corn within a ten mile radius (though I don't recall the movie bothering to suggest this, there really must have been some blustery weather in the space-time vicinity of non-divine origin to make this ploy modestly plausible, even for agrarian America).

Re:The guy who defended Jeffrey Epstein?

[bledri]

Really? Krause says he hasn't seen Epstein with underage girls and that means that his scientific papers are invalid? Are you implying that Krause has seen him with underage women? And what was the point of that video? Now I know that someone said that Epstein had an "egg shaped" penis. Does he? Hell if I know.

Here is what seems like a reasonable response from Krause to me:

I will add one remark here, as most people have not read my full set of comments, posted after the post appeared.. I am myself rather disappointed by the lack of skepticality of this community. As I said, I have read numerous reports of orgies on Jeffrey’s island involving me and other scientists during our meetings.. Orgies that never happened, I am VERY skeptical of other claims on his behavior. I am defending Jeffrey for 2 reasons: (1) Based on my knowledge and experience I am skeptical of the claims in the media and of those who have settled claims for money namely I don’t believe the published details just like I tend to be skeptical of many published details on the internet.. I don’t believe Jeffrey did what has been claimed, and unless I see hard evidence, I will trust my own judgement here, and (2) Jeffrey went to prison, and I happen to believe that having served time, even those who questioned his behavior should be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, again until proved otherwise, that he is working hard to live a good life and do good things. I for one am disgusted that people eat up the salacious nonsense the read on the web and then jump to conclusions about things and people they do not know.. I do not jump to condemn people, especially when it concerns their sexual preferences. I DO NOT CONDONE sex with young girls, or young boys for that matter.. because there are real victims there.. Until I know all the facts however, I do not jump to conclusions, and I am sorry, having seen the media frenzy around Jeffrey, and having seen the shoddy behavior of those who have attacked him, I remain skeptical, and I support a man whose character I believe I know.. If you want to condemn me for that, so be it. L. Krauss

I don't know shit about Epstein, but discounting everything Kraus says because he was skeptical of charges brought against a friend, especially given that he's heard stories that include him that he knows are false? That seems pretty irrational to me.

Science and opinion

[Ottibus]

Scientist have political opinions too and they are just as entitled to express them as anyone else.

Indeed. But they are not entitled to present their opinions as science.

This is a very hard line to walk and it is easy to inadvertently add opinion to a scientific statement. For example, "Scientists are warning that infant mortality will fall significantly over the next 10 years" or "Scientists are warning that CO2 emissions will cause a rise in global temperatures". Both of these statements expression an opinion about a prediction rather than simply stating the prediction. Better to use neutral words to focus on the science not the opinion: "Scientists are predicting that infant mortality will fall significantly over the next 10 years" or "Scientists are predicting that CO2 emissions will cause a rise in global temperatures"

And, to be fair, these opinions are often added by the media in order to make the results more interesting.

Sagan overboard on politics

[peter303]

He was rather to the left. However his "Nuclear Winter" argument against nuclear weapons was off the mark because it was based on primitive science. He used a one-dimensional atmospheric modeling equations to deduce nclear winter. Computers in those days werent powerful enough for 3D modeling. 3D effects such as wind and oceans drastically changed the results when modeled years later.

politicians now say "I am not a scientist"

[peter303]

Which is true for 97% of them. But that remark allows them treat science as equal to non-science arguments or dimiss science altogether.

Neil deGrasse Tyson?

[nickrao]

Really come on! How could you mention his name with the others. I would even drop Sagan. Celebrities, nonsense!

Please, please, please!

[matbury]

Scientists who become recognizable have a chance and perhaps even a responsibility, which they have often exploited, to promote science literacy, combat scientific nonsense, motivate young people, and steer public policy discussions toward sound decision making wherever they can.

Oh please 'Murica, please listen to these people!