Is disclosure actually wise?

I have soured on N. Tyson.
I used to enjoy him immensely, but I've come to the conclusion that while He is very intelligent, he is very closed minded, and He would never be able to do the things that many well known scientists have done in the past. He only knows what has been, and never reaches out to what could be.

 

My view on Tyson is pretty much in line with yours. He’s obviously a sharp guy. That said, I’m sometimes surprised by how closed-minded he can be especially on topics that fall even slightly outside the mainstream narrative. It’s disappointing because he has such a massive platform and could be doing so much more with it.

I’d recommend checking out Eric Weinstein. He brings a completely different energy — much more open, curious, and genuinely exploratory in his approach to ideas.

 

I dont think Tyson is close minded I think he just applies reasonable skepticism to alot of these claims. All that does is put him in the position of not believing claims untill they are demonstrated to be true. In fact I think those are the most open minded people because they are willing to toss there biases aside and follow the evidence.

 

Enjoyed this book. His latest one about aliens not so much but did have some interesting take on things.

 

It’s old but I assume you read “A brief history of time”

 

Actually for the uneducated on this subject this would seem to make some sense

But since it appears your know knowledge of astrophysics solar systems etc is limited I can understand your confusion

The book I recommended explains this quite simply

If you can read give it a try it’s an easy read but a step or two above comic books

 

Well I'll be dang, we agreed on something. LoL

 

Someone like him would never discover, or invent anything new, because He believes what is, is all there is. He has no imagination.
His like the musician that is a awesome great player, and can play anything he hears, but can't come up with anything on his , or of his own. He's brilliant, but nothing original.

 

I would bet if you asked him if he believes what is is all there is, he would say not at all. I have watched alot of his talks and interviews and he seems to still think there is alot we still dont know. I just watched an interview with him about how much we havent learned yet about the Oceans.

 

Yeah I don't know him, I'm just going by interviews, his show , and books I've read of his.. Don't misunderstand me I think he's brilliant, and I didn't always think he had a closed mind, it was something that slowly I felt.

 

Turns out we agree on more than I thought: this thread, good rock & roll bands, and cheering for the same Western Pennsylvania football team. Don’t even tell me you like Italian food and hot chicks too… we might be in some trouble.

 

Just a guess but I'm pretty sure every member of this board likes hot chicks except maybe the one female member who only post in the season prediction poll. Then again, she too might dig hot chicks.

 

The man has limited imagination, which is rare for a serious scientist. A good scientist questions orthodoxy, probes assumptions, and relentlessly tests ideas against natural laws. Yet it feels like he’s paid not to explore the unknown — even in theory. Since becoming a media figure, he mostly tells audiences what they want to hear instead of what he really thinks.

 

9 out of 10 scientist conclude whatever their funders want them to conclude.

 

That is alot of you pretending to know what Tyson thinks. Also Tyson is an Astrophycist and his research is mostly in the field of stellar evolution mainly in the milky way. The job of every scientist is not to "explore the unknown" Tyson explains the data of what is known as does every scientist because it would be unscientific and irresponsible to make proclamations about the unknown. The scientific answer to something unknown always starts form the default position of "we dont know", and then it follows the data and builds models based on the available evidence. What you want is somebody to fill in the unkown with personal bias and speculation, that is not science. Tysons job is not to study whether aliens are real or bigfoot exists, he studys data that is observed in the cosmos not whther or not area 51 is keeping an alien captive.

 

Hold on. The man knows far more than you or I ever will in his specific scientific specialty. That’s undeniable. But that doesn’t change the fact that he seems mostly unwilling to explore the unknown. Einstein, Edison, and Tesla were never shy about breaking boundaries or rigorously testing theories — even when it meant challenging the established consensus. Those giants still tower over Tyson in that spirit of discovery.

No credible scientist is rushing into the Bigfoot realm ( so why bring it up? ) , and no one is surprised that Tyson doesn’t either. But at a bare minimum, if these creatures existed, we should have bones, clear film, or some solid leftover evidence of their existence by now.

 

Joel, saying he is unwilling to explore the unknown is a nothing statement that you need to back up with something specific, because it just looks like you are putting words in his mouth. Really whats happening here is you dont understand how science works, Tyson study's the cosmos are you suggesting that he thinks he knows everything about the cosmos? By the way the bigfoot thing was a hyperbolic example that obviously went over your head.

 

I am saying based on the times I have heard him, he does not explore the unknown in depth on TV. Got it now?

Did you know he has sexual misconduct allegations (2018). Three women publicly accused him: One of drugging and raping her in the 1980s (graduate school era).Two others of inappropriate touching/advances (one at a conference, one his former assistant on Cosmoswho resigned).

One claim can be dismissed, but three is a different situation. A lot more smoke ...

He has his share of factual errors and misquotes. Repeated a distorted/misattributed quote from George W. Bush about 9/11 for years in talks (claiming Bush said "our God is the real God" in a divisive way). When corrected with evidence, he was slow to fully admit it and faced backlash for defensiveness. Occasional slips outside his expertise (e.g., comments on helicopter physics or biology that experts corrected).

IMO he has a perceived arrogance and condescension. Stories (e.g., a resurfaced college event anecdote) describe him mocking humanities majors, nitpicking etiquette, and self-promoting instead of diving deep into science.

I find him more of a communicator than a cutting-edge researcher. I also see as overly performative or celebrity-focused..

But that's just what I see. I perfer Michio Kaku on TV.