Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

StarTalk TV Show With Neil DeGrasse Tyson Starts Monday

Posted by Soulskill on from the way-better-than-reality-tv dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Neil DeGrasse Tyson of StarTalk Radio and Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey has a TV show starting on Monday, April 20, at 11 p.m. ET/10 p.m. CT on NatGeo. Based on Dr. Tyson's prominent podcast of the same name, the hour-long, weekly series infuses pop culture with science, while bringing together comedians and celebrities to delve into a wide range of topics. Each week, in a private interview, Dr. Tyson explores all the ways science and technology have influenced the lives and livelihoods of his guests, whatever their background.

76 comments

  1. But what if the moon blows up without warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and for no apparent reason?

    1. Re: But what if the moon blows up without warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will read about it on slashdot first.

    2. Re: But what if the moon blows up without warning by kwiecmmm · · Score: 1

      More likely about 4 hours afterwards, and after you could have read about it on every other site...

    3. Re: But what if the moon blows up without warning by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      ...and you'll see the story duplicated at least three times over the next 6 months...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Sounds interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sounds interesting, but I'm sure the show would be less condescending and obnoxious if they'd just get rid of Tyson.

    1. Re:Sounds interesting by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      ...and would very likely work references to "climate change" into the monolog a whole lot less.

    2. Re:Sounds interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm sure the stupid conservatives would prefer that nobody mention that the wealthy people they support have screwed up the climate for us all.

    3. Re:Sounds interesting by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      ...and would very likely work references to "climate change" into the monolog a whole lot less.

      Either way, they should've brought Dr. Michio Kaku into it. He may be a physicist, but he's a hell of a lot more able to inspire wonder, and brings a certain level of awesome into the conversation.

      IMHO, Tyson-DeGrasse only seems able to rabble-rouse nowadays. :/

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Sounds interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Michio Kaku is one of the only people who is more annoying than Tyson.

    5. Re:Sounds interesting by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Every time I see Michio Kaku he's talking about some most likely impossible science-fiction fantasy technology. It may inspire wonder, but not in actual science.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:Sounds interesting by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I was a bit turned off by Kaku watching him during some astro show. He gave an single example of something then presented a solution of "what else can it be?". Von Däniken used that kind of thing a lot.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. an atheist show would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An atheist exclusive show would be nice also! With Richard Dawkins and DeGrasse and Bill Nye

    1. Re: an atheist show would be nice by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure Tyson is an atheist.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re: an atheist show would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is. But he likes to pussyfoot around it because he doesn't want to offend people.

  4. solution by fche · · Score: 2

    Solution there, it seems to me, is to create a watchable program.

  5. Re:I woke up today... by BreakBad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I read it three times.

  6. So this means..... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    That sounds like "Cosmos" is cancelled then.

    Too bad, as it was the best thing on TV.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:So this means..... by kwiecmmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cosmos wasn't a series. It was like a mini-series, it ran its course and was done.

    2. Re:So this means..... by taustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Other than devoting 2/3 of the first episode to anti-Catholic propaganda. (And it's not like there aren't plenty of true bad things one could say about the renaissance age Church. He just didn't use any of that, and focused instead on outright fabrications.)

    3. Re:So this means..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he went the religious route on religion?

    4. Re:So this means..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than devoting 2/3 of the first episode to anti-Catholic propaganda. (And it's not like there aren't plenty of true bad things one could say about the renaissance age Church. He just didn't use any of that, and focused instead on outright fabrications.)

      I believe you...

    5. Re:So this means..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Christian!

    6. Re:So this means..... by Algan · · Score: 2

      The catholic church, by itself, probably delayed the scientific progress of humanity by at least a couple hundred years. I think it deserves a little bashing now and then.

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    7. Re:So this means..... by boris111 · · Score: 1

      What was specifically said that you believe to be a fabrication?

    8. Re:So this means..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the part about a space wizard.

    9. Re:So this means..... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      That sounds like "Cosmos" is cancelled then.

      Too bad, as it was the best thing on TV.

      It *was* the best thing on TV... when Carl Sagan did it. In the time and place that the original series ran, it was a refreshing and needed mixture of education, propaganda, and philosophy. Yes, propaganda, and that's not a bad thing, considering that most folks at the time had no awareness of the impacts mankind was wreaking on their environment, or the dangers that the then-escalating Cold War posed to humanity.

      Nowadays, people are on forced-empathy overload of a sort... everywhere they turn for entertainment, they're bombarded with preaching. Eventually, it turns one off to the idea, then makes one hostile to it - especially when it's being pushed from every orifice of the media, you know?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    10. Re:So this means..... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested in knowing what might be fabricated, too. Any particular part?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    11. Re: So this means..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something a scientologist would say.

      I would say 3/3 since it's all bullshit.

  7. Re:neil degrasse tyson sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did he upset you by mentioning that your superstitions aren't true?

  8. Re:I woke up today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    You're a pal and a cosmonaut.

  9. Re: I woke up today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tomorrow you won't wake up, and this would have been your last chance to make a useful comment on slashdot.

  10. I'm kind of sick of this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a big interest in physics and cosmology, etc, and generally fall asleep listening to some lecture or talk of some sort, be it Feynman or Susskind or what have you.

    All NGT (and guys like Lawrence Kraus or Bill Nye) talk about are themselves, or how stupid everybody else is who isn't balls deep in Al Gore's ass with the climate change deal. It's the most asinine and shallow of political discussions.

    It's annoying, because I'd love to hear about astrophysics (that's his job, right?) or string theory in Kraus' case.

    Quit mixing pop culture and science, it dumbs it down and makes people I respected once look like

  11. Great news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've watch all dr. Tyson's videos on Youtube, one podcast per week (not always featuring Neil himself) isn't nearly enough to satisfy me now.

  12. You aren't the audience by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a big interest in physics and cosmology, etc, and generally fall asleep listening to some lecture or talk of some sort, be it Feynman or Susskind or what have you.

    .....

    Quit mixing pop culture and science, it dumbs it down and makes people I respected once look like

    These kinds of shows aren't for people who fall asleep every night listening to lectures. These kinds of shows are for the people who think Taylor Swift is the greatest singer/songwriter of all time, or can name everyone in the newest season of Dancing with the Stars but can't name the top people in government. The idea is to get people who aren't normally interested in science to at least think about it, to develop a rudimentary understanding of how science works (scientific theory, how scientists think, etc) and why the world around them is the way it is. Even a simplistic understadning is better than no understanding at all.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:You aren't the audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to need to see a comparative analysis concerning this statement.

    2. Re:You aren't the audience by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I have a big interest in physics and cosmology, etc, and generally fall asleep listening to some lecture or talk of some sort, be it Feynman or Susskind or what have you.

      .....

      Quit mixing pop culture and science, it dumbs it down and makes people I respected once look like

      These kinds of shows aren't for people who fall asleep every night listening to lectures. These kinds of shows are for the people who think Taylor Swift is the greatest singer/songwriter of all time, or can name everyone in the newest season of Dancing with the Stars but can't name the top people in government. The idea is to get people who aren't normally interested in science to at least think about it, to develop a rudimentary understanding of how science works (scientific theory, how scientists think, etc) and why the world around them is the way it is. Even a simplistic understadning is better than no understanding at all.

      Exactly. This is for those people who can name the members of the band One Direction and who are upset over one of the band members leaving (I only know this much because it preempted real news for a solid week). My thought is that it will end up falling into the same category as CSI: Cyber. Something for the general audience and not for the technically minded.

    3. Re:You aren't the audience by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Replace "science" with "football" in your assertion of what people should do, and explain why your rendering of what's important is objectively better, beyond being better for massaging your own ego.

      Sure. I played football from elementary school all the way through college. My wife knows nothing about the sport but I want her to watch it with me. I don't start talking about different offensive formations like pistol, shotgun, spread, or when to use a 4-3 instead of a 3-4 defense. I start with basics, give her a rough idea of who everyone is and what they do so she can follow along while I can pay more attention to the "tactics" of the game. I fail to see how this is a bad thing (or "massaging my ego"-nice ad hominen by the way), and is precisely how you go about bringing in people that are completely unfamiliar with a topic. If you tailor a tv show about science to the people with a Master's degree or higher level of understanding then you miss out on a lot of people.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:You aren't the audience by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that has its own set of problems, vis-à-vis “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.”

      Don't get me wrong. I'm all for making difficult subjects easier to approach, but when you have to dress it up with celebrity and T&A, it seem to be missing the point that these things are interesting and worth knowing about in their own right, and not because it has some celebrity endorsement.

      There already has been enough problems with dumbing down in regards to science reporting that I'm not certain moving even further down that path is a good idea.

    5. Re:You aren't the audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's too skinny and looks like an alien. Give me Katy Perry, she at least also has great legs.

    6. Re:You aren't the audience by ranton · · Score: 1

      but when you have to dress it up with celebrity and T&A, it seem to be missing the point that these things are interesting and worth knowing about in their own right, and not because it has some celebrity endorsement.

      It was the possibility of creating computer games that got me interested in programming initially. If you would have started telling me in 4th grade about how programming can be used to integrate CRM and ERP systems I probably would have just kept playing Nintendo instead of learning QBASIC.

      Sometimes you need to get people hooked on how a topic can be cool before you start showing them how it can be practical.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    7. Re:You aren't the audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is true then why is NTD a colossal anus to people he believes are beneath him. It doesn't inspire the uneducated, it drives them away through his downtalking. He's real great though as a masturbatory figure for the people who all want to think they're so smart but don't really like astronomy.

      makes me cringe and I'm not even a christian fundamentalist. it's like he just can't choose his battles, be relatable and play the long game for the betterment of humanity. he demands to blow his mental load immediately.

    8. Re:You aren't the audience by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Good analogy. That's the way it works.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    9. Re:You aren't the audience by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      If you would have started telling me in 4th grade about how programming can be used to integrate CRM and ERP systems I probably would have just kept playing Nintendo instead of learning QBASIC.

      Sometimes you need to get people hooked on how a topic can be cool before you start showing them how it can be practical.

      Yep. I got into computers because I had fun programming an artillery game in my school's first computer.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  13. Re:I woke up today... by OakDragon · · Score: 2

    I love how someone modded it "Informative."

    --
    Dark Reflection
  14. So long as.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..that annoying cohost isnt on it, it should be good. I'm a huge fan of Astronomy Cast, various naked scientists podcats and the skeptics guide. I tried startalk, after 10 minutes I deleted it from my line up.

  15. deflate gate by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

    Judging from the way he not only prematurely used what turned out to be incorrect data but also botched the basic physics of "deflategate" maybe infusing pop culture with science isn't his strong suit.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    1. Re:deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was what, 20 degrees off in his math? The balls still had to be heated to the point where they'd be noticeably hot to the touch, and he did correct himself when it was pointed out.

      The real scandal there is that the NFL STILL hasn't admitted the Patriots were caught cheating red-handed (probably from touching such a hot football) and hasn't taken away their fake Superbowl win and kicked Belichek out.

    2. Re:deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judging from the way he not only prematurely used what turned out to be incorrect data but also botched the basic physics of "deflategate" maybe infusing pop culture with science isn't his strong suit.

      OMG. A scientist came up with a conclusion, published his conclusion along with the methodology he used to arrive at that conclusion, someone read what he published and found an error in his methodology, and he came back and said "oops, I made a mistake, here's the correct answer". Oh, the horror.

      No, I think that's absolutely the way to infuse pop culture with science. He inadvertently demonstrated how publication + peer review yields better results than simply saying "here's the answer"

    3. Re:deflate gate by Straif · · Score: 1

      I think you missed a lot of deflategate. While Tyson and to a lesser extent Nye claimed what you say was required, it was shown the simple process of handling the ball in a regular fashion was more than enough to explain the discrepancies in psi. They were no extremes required, just simple normal NFL practices.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    4. Re:deflate gate by Straif · · Score: 1

      If stating his conclusion was all he did than that would be fine but in his tweet he was essentially attacking the Patriots organization and accusing them of cheating.

      When you are making accusations against a particular group or person you better double check your math and you shouldn't be surprised that there's blowback when it's shown that you were in fact wrong.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    5. Re: deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's clearly bullshit. You know how I know that?

      The experimental evidence of the 12 balls the other team had that went through the same "general handling" and yet managed not to be deflated.

      Everyone knows the Patriots cheated to make it to the Superbowl and never should have won it the way they did. The only question that remains is if the NFL will be bothered to do anything about it.

    6. Re: deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing he wasn't wrong then, he was just off by how blatant their cheating was. The Patriots are cheaters. They've been caught before and "punished" before. (Not in any meaningful way, but still, "punished.")

      He was something like 20F off in his calculation, moving the ball temperature required for their claims from "hot enough to burn you" to "hot enough to hurt." It's still cheating, he just got a higher number than he should have.

      Which he admitted and corrected. His main point (if the balls were merely hot, people would have noticed) still stands and the only way the Patriots' balls could be as deflated as observed was if they were actively tampering with them.

    7. Re: deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they did better in the second half with the non-deflated balls. Sorry to burst your football.

    8. Re: deflate gate by Straif · · Score: 1

      Each team can inflate their footballs as they want. The officials just ensure that at the time of testing they fall within the accepted psi range.

      The Patriots have already said they like their footballs on the low side of the range while the Colts preferred their footballs inflated to the maximum allowable.

      Since the NFL doesn't track the pressures of the balls they inspect, just make sure that they pass, their is no indication that the Colts balls also didn't lose similar pressure during the game.

      There are also pictures of the Colts balls being stored near the sideline heaters which is a violation of the rules and would also help account for any differences in relative pressure drops between their footballs and the Patriots.

      All this is moot since in real world testing similar deflation was found. That and as is mentioned in another response, this only affected the first half and the Patriots scored 28 points AFTER their footballs were replaced/re-inflated.

      As Dwayne Allen tweeted:

      They could have played with soap for balls and beat us. Simply the better team.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    9. Re: deflate gate by Straif · · Score: 1

      Real world tests duplicated the deflation of the footballs exactly; no extreme heating was required, just normal handling. Even the calculations back up the pressure changes when correctly applied.

      Oddly enough, according to the NFL investigation the only ball that was under inflated by a full 2lbs was the ball that was at one point in the possession of the Colts, all other balls were under inflated by factions of that. It's also been noted that a lot of the initial reporting on the 'scandal' came from Indianapolis sources and not the NFL. Simply put this was a non-issue that some people in the Indy media wanted to make a federal case. Even the players themselves admitted they were simply outplayed by a better team.

      I don't even like the Pats per se, I just like watching exciting football regardless of what teams are playing. I do occasionally root against the Seahawks simply because one of my friends is a rabid fan and it's always fun to push his buttons. You are sounding very much like him right now when even when the replay of a call clearly shows the penalty was deserved he will argue it till his last breath.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    10. Re:deflate gate by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      We are still waiting on the NFL to reveal any official data but the last story out was that only one ball, the one the Colts had possession of, was significantly under inflated. This is another problem, beyond rushing your work, in dealing with topical, controversial subjects. You may not be working with good data. Another aspect is that when you seek attention by combing those mistakes to disparage peoples reputation you end up permanently damaging your own reputation. I'll certainly remember this incident whenever Tyson is mentioned.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    11. Re: deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real world tests duplicated the deflation of the footballs exactly; no extreme heating was required, just normal handling. Even the calculations back up the pressure changes when correctly applied.

      No, they don't. Because there were 12 other balls on that field that mysteriously didn't deflate while only the Patriots ones did.

      The calculations done correctly prove that the balls would need to be heated to nearly 100F in order to see the deflation observed.

      I'm not even a Seahawks fan, I'm just sick and tired of seeing the Patriots get away with blatant cheating.

    12. Re: deflate gate by Straif · · Score: 1

      There is no record indicating how much the colts balls deflated as the NFL doesn't actually record initial inflation numbers, merely a pass/fail, so balls inflated to the max, losing a similar level of pressure would now be near the min but still pass. That and the colts balls were stored in violation of NFL rules, in front of the sideline heater means they weren't actually stored in the same conditions as the Pats balls.

      For the record of all the deflategate balls, 1 lost 2lbs (mysteriously the only one ever in possession of the Colts), a few more lost about 1lb and most were just slightly below the min of 12.5. Real world tests show even the 2lb loss was possible with the weather conditions and normal ball handling procedures but a 1lbs or less is almost guaranteed. Even using the standard formula for air pressure, forgetting the ball has a rubber balloon inside and there are other factors in play, the temperature difference alone accounts for almost a .5lbs drop in pressure which would make every ball inflated to the league minimum show as under inflated before the first pass was thrown.

      As I stated earlier, the early reports of all the balls being significantly below the league minimum came out of the Indy media who were trying to drum up the controversy, in reality, most of the balls lost less than a lbs of pressure.

      At this point only Colt/Seahawks fans or just general anti-Pat'ers are still holding onto deflategate as still a thing.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    13. Re: deflate gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point only Colt/Seahawks fans or just general anti-Pat'ers are still holding onto deflategate as still a thing.

      So that's why the NFL has cleared the Patriots of all wrong-doing, then?

      Wait, that hasn't happened! The NFL still thinks Deflategate is a thing, they just haven't figured out a way to save face for taking until after the Superbowl to do anything about it.

      The Patriots will get another slap on the wrist for blatant cheating, yet again, and the NFL will yet again pretend they've "solved the problem" when what they should do is ban Belichek from the league for life and move the Patriots to some part of the country that isn't filled with cheaters.

  16. since when does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    omg natgeo has an actual, relevant television series? has hell frozen over? (checks michigan weather)... does mtv play music videos, too?

  17. Pluto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pluto is a planet dammit. Not a dwarf. A full fledged planet, you bastard.

  18. in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Another angry, smarmy atheist gets a show to piss on Christians, because science.

    1. Re:in other news... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Do you put religion and science on the same level? Which you like better, like oranges or bananas? Science is a way to learn about things rationally then you make up your mind. Religion is a way to learn things by having ideas imposed on you. It's certainly healthier to learn science first, then you decide if you want to be interested in religion as well.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  19. I like Tyson. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    Even though I disagree with him on a lot of things.

    I just wish they'd drop the comedians, though. Unless it's Chuck Nice. Leighann Lord is OK too, but dang, that Eugene Merman dood he has on his radio program far to often, he drops the IQ of the show about 20 points every time he's on. The others make jokes that show they're listening to Tyson and understanding him, but Merman just pops off inane non sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic.

    And don't bring in Bill Nye for guest hosting... Now that's annoying.

  20. Have you actually listened to Tyson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a real global warming gumball, I tell you what. Why can't the US field a Brian Cox or Michio Kaku? Why did Isaac Asimov have to die of AIDS?

  21. airs on 4/20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Woah man, look at that Sun... it's just like.... blazin', man.

  22. Michio vs. Tyson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michio is a bigger crackpot, Tyson is more willing to fabricate political nonsense.

    Either one is marginally more credible than Bill Nye, The Science Turd.

  23. Get a divorce lawyer now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. You are too big a douche for any chick to stay married to.