Pluto!!!

[drunkenshoe]

This is kinda like complaining that Bernini was no Michelangelo.

Lol, that anology actually sides with me. Bernini is not just 'not Michelangelo', he is also a pretty hyped up figure compared to many others and what he did.

I think Tyson definitely has the same infectious sense of fascination and fun for the subject, and is equally unwilling to pull punches.

Nobody critcised his style and his activism. I admire him for what he is doing as I stated.

Also keep in mind that Sagan came of age professionally at the peak of the space race; by the time Tyson was out of college, NASA was the red-headed stepchild of the US' annual budget and the opportunities there were considerably less.

If I didnt keep that in mind, I wouldn't point out the difficulty Sagan faced in that period because of what he did. There is another side of the coin coming with that peak. And that made Sagan's life difficult just because what he did, the more he did it. What Sagan achieved is far beyond the range of his time, doesnt matter what angle you look from. That's the whole point. He is a pioneer. Tyson is not. That doesn't put him down. It defines his place accurately.

But there's no question in my mind that Neil 'gets it' in exactly the same way that Carl did, and that he's just as capable of expressing that excitement over the universe and our place in it:

It's not about getting it right.

The point you don't get here is saying that "Tyson is NOT in Sagan's league" is NOT a statement that PUTS TYSON DOWN. It's pointing out a fact and refusing to accept an unnecessary hype. It doesn't mean Tyson is unimportant or not good at what he is doing.

We got used to celebrate mediocrity so well, anyone who is successful at what he is doing or consistent in achieving the same goals, gets to be declared extraordinary or some sort of a genius at some point. No, they are not. That's not celebrating these people, that's championing them, promoting them to fill a space they are not meant to, because we don't have the better. And that's not beneficial to us. It just lowers the bar, it simplifies what all these people spend their lives to accomplish. 

There is a little amount of extraordinary people in human history, far less in recent history. It's not about filling some space and continuing a tradition. Yes, it is admirable, but that's it.

Also, somehow it feels like Tyson would be the first person to agree with this.

[trdsf]

The point you don't get here is saying that "Tyson is NOT in Sagan's league" is NOT a statement that PUTS TYSON DOWN. It's pointing out a fact and refusing to accept an unnecessary hype. It doesn't mean Tyson is unimportant or not good at what he is doing.

No, I get that point.

I just very strongly disagree with you.

[drunkenshoe]

No, I get that point.

I just very strongly disagree with you.

Oh, so you just enjoy disagreeing with me. OK. Knock yourself out.

Just don't forget that that unnecessary hype and promotion cause those people get under appreciated in long term and lose their influence eventually before their time, while they still got a lot to give.

They do not deserve that, they are scarce and they are needed. We do not need to make Holywood stars out of anyone doing something good. It's harmful, also devaluating their efforts.

[trdsf]

Oh, so you just enjoy disagreeing with me. OK. Knock yourself out.

Just don't forget that that unnecessary hype and promotion cause those people get under appreciated in long term and lose their influence eventually before their time, while they still got a lot to give.

They do not deserve that, they are scarce and they are needed. We do not need to make Holywood stars out of anyone doing something good. It's harmful, also devaluating their efforts.

Enjoyment has nothing to do with it.  I made my statement, and I stand by my opinion.  If you want to keep going on as if your opinion is lab-tested proof, you go right ahead.

[drunkenshoe]

Enjoyment has nothing to do with it.  I made my statement, and I stand by my opinion.  If you want to keep going on as if your opinion is lab-tested proof, you go right ahead.

I wrote something, you reacted to it and I'm trying to explain why I disagree with the whole thing; standing by my opinion based on a general idea. You are pretty much like supporting a 'football player', not stating an opinion. You make irrelevant comparisons. (Art history, lab-tested proof) You are the one who is annoyed by my opinion to begin with. I'm not going to apologise because I don't automatically type "we have to agree to disagree then :)". We post about the same topics countless times all around the forum, how is it that it's a problem that I wrote another post? Whatever...

[trdsf]

I wrote something, you reacted to it and I'm trying to explain why I disagree with the whole thing; standing by my opinion based on a general idea. You are pretty much like supporting a 'football player', not stating an opinion. You make irrelevant comparisons. (Art history, lab-tested proof) You are the one who is annoyed by my opinion to begin with. I'm not going to apologise because I don't automatically type "we have to agree to disagree then :)". We post about the same topics countless times all around the forum, how is it that it's a problem that I wrote another post? Whatever...

Couple incorrect assumptions you're making here, but the main one is that I give a fuck.  The only objections I have is that you're stating your opinion as if it were fact, and that you're so exercised about being disagreed with.

See, this is the thing that really bothers me, and it's not only you, it's very nearly everyone anymore: no one can tolerate being disagreed with, and a contrary opinion is treated like a personal attack.  I defy you to point to anything I posted that says "No, you're wrong".  I have consistently and explicitly stated that things are 'in my opinion' and 'in my view'.  You're the one who says:

The point you don't get here...

and

You are pretty much like supporting a 'football player', not stating an opinion.

and most egregiously

It's pointing out a fact

when you were absolutely expressing an opinion, not a fact.  You stated your opinion, I stated mine, and you apparently just couldn't stand being disagreed with and felt it necessary to attack my understanding and belittle my position.

Thank you, I've now formed another opinion, though not about the original topic of discussion.

[drunkenshoe]

I don't have a problem with being disageed, trdsf. If I had, I wouldn't give the time and the energy and write long posts most people don't read, about almost anything I want to talk about. So please do not mistake my assertive tone, sometimes agressive stance for something else than being eager to have some conversation. Yeah, I seem to get pissed off easily, however that's just hot blood and a flash in the pan.

However, I have a problem with abrupt, pre-mature attitude of 'we'll agree to disagree then' or 'oh I just very strongly disagree' and continue to go on about in a dismissive tone. Because you are also the disagreed side here. We are not 'enemies'. This is an internet forum and we should mess up with each other's ideas and opinions, likes and dislikes because there is nothing else, may be even call each other a few names at most, but then be able to turn around and say 'hi, how are things going on?' in some other thread. That's how I see it.

---------------------------

Those are two different quotes from two different posts. So taking them out of context and putting them together in your post is pretty much pretending not to get the point. I am not telling one thing in one post and another thing in the other. There is something I point out and then 'things' that I connect within a bigger picture.

The FACT I was pointing out is that Sagan was a contributing scientist while Tyson is not. This is NOT a personal opinion of anyone. It's a fact. And that was what I wrote in my first post as the main quality to point out the differences between two people to state why they cannot be in the same league. It was the thing that triggered me to write against the comparison to begin with. Also it's what annoyed you. You tried to excuse Tyson for something he didn't/couldn't do. (As if he needed to be excused for anything in any way)

You are also praising him with the calibre of 'getting it' as good as Sagan. There is a simpler hint there for you, why the two cannot be in the same league. Having said that, he doesn't need to 'get it' like Sagan to be good at his job or to be celebrated for what he is doing. So supporting him like a 'football player' with an unnecessary hype is devaluating of his place and his work.

The general idea I was refering to is about a certain general trait of American culture. It produces these sort of hypes and needless promotions around every public figure possible -doesn't matter who are they or what they are doing; actors, scientists, singers, artists, reality show stars, the president, the toddler beauty queen, talk show hosts, stand up comedians- they ALL get the same fucking SORT of hype and the goal is just to squeeze them dry as a disposable product until people get sick of them. Unfortunately, very a few of them are a bit too important to be used as hype material.

This is the same thing in its essence from the exaggerated harmful promotion of the ordinary individual's ego; 'everybody is special', the huge set of industries that come with it, to the world famous Hollywood actors, writers, scientists... you name it -dead or alive- all those figures according to the group they are being marketed for. Top to bottom celebrating mediocrity by hype. So anyone who really needs to be up there, another one somewhere down gets confused and that directly influences what everyone set out to do in the first place.

People complain about how anti-intellectualism is killing America, how it is always the same sort of people who gets the spot light in arts or science, how there are no original, intellectual and creative products produced in an international level. This is about one of those 'whys and hows' in a huge tangled relations of cultural traits specific to American culture. That space race and its peak, the sense of 'fall' -apart from economical issues- is included in that too.

Then people get annoyed when I say who the fuck is Sam Harris. It's the same shit. A hyped up best selling author who wouldn't be able to get to half the way he did if he was born in Europe. He is an avarage with a scientific education, celebrated as a someone 'gifted' or 'special' because he was born in America. Celebrity culture.

How is that something real going to happen if people are programmed to treat everyone that goes out there to do something good like a superhero of some sort? It's a crude, barren cultural trait. It's harmful, it's what lies under most things you complain about your society on general ignorance, willful ignorance and the specific 'stupid culture' Americans like to bash. Why children or youngster are more likely to aspire to be like Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian instead of Tyson. Hyping up Tyson, putting him up there somewhere he doesn't belong, putting him in the same machine. He has his place, he doesn't have to be pushed in to some other league to be 'good' or 'celebrated'.

The worst thing is, unfortunately, religion and nationalism and any kind bigotry are very compatible with this cultural trait of hype, they are feeding each other as well as being fed from the outcome, because it is a some sort of fanatism, 'team supporting'. Which kills every kind of critical thought and original idea that it can't exploit. This is a very tangled, messed up issue, it is important and gives more harm to children, young people and generally people than a two dozen Tysons can fix.

[Cocoa Beware]

No, he's not Sagan, but consider what a tough act to follow Carl Sagan was.  They're equally gifted, I think, and Tyson fills those shoes well.  When Sagan died, there was left a big gap where cosmologists failed to explain things to the average stargazer or excite them much.  Tyson does, though, and he doesn't trivialize the wonder of the universe by invoking the supernatural. 

To be honest that picture isnt really representative of my own views, I just couldnt resist the temptation of sharing it. Sorry for the controversy.

To be honest I'm indifferent about whether Pluto is considered a planet or not, because to me it doesn't mean it's insignificant. We seem to have a great deal to learn from it after a close look.

I never held it against those who demoted Pluto as there are a yet indeterminate number of roughly Pluto-sized worlds orbiting the Sun independently, and as it stands upon their discovery we will not call them planets, so it always struck me as a sensible compromise.

[SGOS]

To be honest that picture isnt really representative of my own views

It doesn't have to represent your views.  It's still funny.  I can get that it's a matter of opinion whether Pluto is a planet or Tyson is a Sagan.  However, those who think Tyson is a Pluto or Pluto is not a Sagan may be suspect.

[Cocoa Beware]

Sagan claimed that if the Arab world would have kept up with scientific inquiry like it had before the burning of the Library of Alexandria and Europe would have avoided it's religious preoccupation and the contempt for the acquisition of knowledge during the Dark Ages, we would now be populating other planets.  I dunno.  It sounds like heady optimism.  No doubt we would have progressed unbelievably beyond where we are now, however.

Its optimistic, but certainly possible.

However, it may be more likely that we will never be able to overcome the massive hurdles of interstellar travel and colonization, at least before some kind of natural or human made disaster seals our fate in the meantime.

If we assume that not only the Great Library remained intact, but the spirit of Greek and Roman philosophy in which knowledge was perceived as having more value then anything monetary also remained intact, ergo everything was fair game for inquiry from the very beginning, I think we would be many centuries ahead from where we are now.

And its not like there weren't technological advances during the "Dark Ages" either. Its a bit of a misnomer as we kept plodding along, albeit at an unremarkable rate. What really held us back was the inability to think freely.

[trdsf]

I don't have a problem with being disageed, trdsf. If I had, I wouldn't give the time and the energy and write long posts most people don't read, about almost anything I want to talk about. So please do not mistake my assertive tone, sometimes agressive stance for something else than being eager to have some conversation. Yeah, I seem to get pissed off easily, however that's just hot blood and a flash in the pan.

However, I have a problem with abrupt, pre-mature attitude of 'we'll agree to disagree then' or 'oh I just very strongly disagree' and continue to go on about in a dismissive tone. Because you are also the disagreed side here. We are not 'enemies'. This is an internet forum and we should mess up with each other's ideas and opinions, likes and dislikes because there is nothing else, may be even call each other a few names at most, but then be able to turn around and say 'hi, how are things going on?' in some other thread. That's how I see it.

I consider the ability to 'agree to disagree' absolutely essential to civil discourse -- at least in matters which pass what I call the Jefferson Test -- "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- so while it might be an interesting topic of debate, it's not really relevant to anyone's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.  This is exactly where a comparison of Sagan and Tyson falls, unlike something like national health policy, or marriage rights, or the like.

Those are two different quotes from two different posts. So taking them out of context and putting them together in your post is pretty much pretending not to get the point. I am not telling one thing in one post and another thing in the other. There is something I point out and then 'things' that I connect within a bigger picture.

The FACT I was pointing out is that Sagan was a contributing scientist while Tyson is not. This is NOT a personal opinion of anyone. It's a fact. And that was what I wrote in my first post as the main quality to point out the differences between two people to state why they cannot be in the same league. It was the thing that triggered me to write against the comparison to begin with. Also it's what annoyed you. You tried to excuse Tyson for something he didn't/couldn't do. (As if he needed to be excused for anything in any way)

So, the papers he's published in The Astronomical Journal, The Astrophysical Journal and Astronomy & Astrophysics don't count as being a "contributing scientist".  Rrrrrright.

You are also praising him with the calibre of 'getting it' as good as Sagan. There is a simpler hint there for you, why the two cannot be in the same league. Having said that, he doesn't need to 'get it' like Sagan to be good at his job or to be celebrated for what he is doing. So supporting him like a 'football player' with an unnecessary hype is devaluating of his place and his work.

And back to belittling again.  Yes, thank you, you've made it clear that you're much more interested in proving your so-called point than in having an exchange.

It is worth noting that if stating the opinion that Tyson "gets it" as well as Sagan did is praise, than stating he doesn't is, despite your protestations to the contrary, necessarily denigratory.

The general idea I was refering to is about a certain general trait of American culture. It produces these sort of hypes and needless promotions around every public figure possible -doesn't matter who are they or what they are doing; actors, scientists, singers, artists, reality show stars, the president, the toddler beauty queen, talk show hosts, stand up comedians- they ALL get the same fucking SORT of hype and the goal is just to squeeze them dry as a disposable product until people get sick of them. Unfortunately, very a few of them are a bit too important to be used as hype material.

This is the same thing in its essence from the exaggerated harmful promotion of the ordinary individual's ego; 'everybody is special', the huge set of industries that come with it, to the world famous Hollywood actors, writers, scientists... you name it -dead or alive- all those figures according to the group they are being marketed for. Top to bottom celebrating mediocrity by hype. So anyone who really needs to be up there, another one somewhere down gets confused and that directly influences what everyone set out to do in the first place.

People complain about how anti-intellectualism is killing America, how it is always the same sort of people who gets the spot light in arts or science, how there are no original, intellectual and creative products produced in an international level. This is about one of those 'whys and hows' in a huge tangled relations of cultural traits specific to American culture. That space race and its peak, the sense of 'fall' -apart from economical issues- is included in that too.

Then people get annoyed when I say who the fuck is Sam Harris. It's the same shit. A hyped up best selling author who wouldn't be able to get to half the way he did if he was born in Europe. He is an avarage with a scientific education, celebrated as a someone 'gifted' or 'special' because he was born in America. Celebrity culture.

How is that something real going to happen if people are programmed to treat everyone that goes out there to do something good like a superhero of some sort? It's a crude, barren cultural trait. It's harmful, it's what lies under most things you complain about your society on general ignorance, willful ignorance and the specific 'stupid culture' Americans like to bash. Why children or youngster are more likely to aspire to be like Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian instead of Tyson. Hyping up Tyson, putting him up there somewhere he doesn't belong, putting him in the same machine. He has his place, he doesn't have to be pushed in to some other league to be 'good' or 'celebrated'.

The worst thing is, unfortunately, religion and nationalism and any kind bigotry are very compatible with this cultural trait of hype, they are feeding each other as well as being fed from the outcome, because it is a some sort of fanatism, 'team supporting'. Which kills every kind of critical thought and original idea that it can't exploit. This is a very tangled, messed up issue, it is important and gives more harm to children, young people and generally people than a two dozen Tysons can fix.

See, and now in your chestbeating, you finally got to a point worth discussing.

I won't debate the question of whether we have a personality/celebrity obsessed culture, since we do.  I won't debate the question of whether of not it's healthy, because I agree, it's not.

But given that that's the culture we live in, and that withdrawing from it cannot possibly fix it, who would you rather see elevated to celebrity status by it -- Kim Kardiashian and Justin Bieber, or Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye?  Which ones are more likely to try to impress the idea that thinking for one's self and paying attention to and thinking about the real world around them just might be a better thing to do with one's time than staring at 'Big Brother' and 'Pop Idol'?

And which way of thinking is more likely to eventually lead to a culture that is *not* celebrity obsessed?

It's all well and good to decry the world we live in -- but the unfortunate thing is that we do live in it, and the way out of it is far more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary.  And that means sociological jiu jitsu -- using the flaws of the culture against themselves until they're either no longer flaws, or no longer part of the culture.

So let them have celebrity status -- the message that the celebrity scientist (and let there be no doubt about it, Sagan himself was very much promoted in the same way, and wasn't shy about using that status to get his message out; this isn't something that's new with Tyson) is going to deliver has vastly more potential to both educate, and create the sort of mindset that doesn't need to blindly adulate.  Trying to excuse or exclude science popularizers -- not only Tyson, but Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox et al. -- is excluding the introduction of the one thing that can break the very cultural problems you complain about: rational thinking and the scientific method.

[drunkenshoe]

I'm not really in the mood of discussing about American celebrity culture, trdsf. Things are really bad over here. Not feeling good. May be another time.

[trdsf]

Frozen.  Nitrogen.  Glaciers.



As much as I love science fiction, you couldn't make this shit up.  :D

[drunkenshoe]

trdsf, It's not 'chest beating'. It's cultural and personal difference. You guys can't get that for some reason and want everyone fit in to your norms. I 'talk' like that. It's not something I can help. I do not need to write or talk in some style people think I should fit in. I'm not an American or a European. I also despise political correctness and NO 'agree to disagree' is something people should go with when things get uncivil, not before in fear of it could go uncivil. You cannot exchange anything real with that remote, cold attitude. It's not civilised manners, it is just apathy. Get a bit messy, get a bit confrontational. Doesn't hurt anyone. We are on the same team.

[trdsf]

trdsf, It's not 'chest beating'. It's cultural and personal difference. You guys can't get that for some reason and want everyone fit in to your norms. I 'talk' like that. It's not something I can help. I do not need to write or talk in some style people think I should fit in. I'm not an American or a European. I also despise political correctness and NO 'agree to disagree' is something people should go with when things get uncivil, not before in fear of it could go uncivil. You cannot exchange anything real with that remote, cold attitude. It's not civilised manners, it is just apathy. Get a bit messy, get a bit confrontational. Doesn't hurt anyone. We are on the same team.

Civility or incivility hasn't anything to do with it.  It just wasn't a debate I wanted to get into in the first place -- for that matter, I didn't even consider it a debate, just a difference of opinion.

What I will always react negatively to is not being disagreed with, but being told that I don't get it -- that is what I object to, and the inbuilt implication that if I did "get it", then I wouldn't disagree.  I get it perfectly well, and I come to a different conclusion, and some things do not have a definitive right or wrong to them.  Disagreement does not be disagreeable, and questioning my intellect and/or judgment is something I will always consider disagreeable.

I recommend completely dropping the matter now.  I certainly have nothing further to say on it.