Jump to content

N dGrasse Tyson bites off more Steak-Umm than he can chew


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

Neal deGrasse Tyson made and amateurish post ( which he should have qualified ), and was soundly rebuked by Steak-Umm's social media postings.
I actually find it kind of humorous.

Steak-umm's Twitter Account Feuds With Neil deGrasse Tyson Over Science: 'Log Off Bro' (msn.com)

Excellent! I see this company does this sort of thing in general. Good for them - makes a change to treat your customers, or potential customers,  as if they can think. Respect! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, being on twitter, soundbites are kind of necessary, and it's easy to read too much into a tweet where someone is trying to be pithy.

Steak-Umm wasn't wrong, but it's arguable what "it" encompasses. The process of science, or the knowledge it uncovers? And are you picking nits when the parenthetical "all science is subject to revision if new information is uncovered" isn't included, because perhaps that was meant to be understood?

So yeah, it could have been worded better, but then it wouldn't flow as well. "The good thing about Science is that the truth of the information it uncovers doesn't depend on whether or not you believe in it." would be better, but won't fit as well onto a t-shirt.

 

It's also a matter of his followers probably knowing the science is both a process and a body of knowledge and being able to discern between the two uses, and Steak-Umm cynically assuming that his followers aren't those people.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would give him a break, @MigL, although I see your point. The word "truth" is perhaps not the best choice --sociologically--, granted. But,

Number of times Feynman uses the noun "truth" in the Feynman Lectures on Physics:

Volume I: 5

Volume II: 6

Volume III: 9

Number of times the adjective "true" appears in the Feynman Lectures on Physics:

Volume I: 128 (one of them in the composite word "untrue")

(at this point I stopped counting)

The difference is these were not tweets.

 

If you think about it, there are two ways in which you can present scientific "truths":

 

1) Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal

2) Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal to within 1 part in 5 billion

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't mind calling the second one "true."

 

The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I 18-1

Quote

18-1 Maxwell's equations

[...] Now we are ready to give you the whole truth, with no qualifications (or almost none).

(My Italics emphasis.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, joigus said:

I would give him a break, @MigL, although I see your point. The word "truth" is perhaps not the best choice --sociologically--, granted. But,

Personally, I quiet like Neal DeGrasse-Tyson, not that such a subjective opinion, has any real bearing on whether he was right or wrong. Physicists such as Neal, Brian Cox, Brian Greene, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, the late great Carl Sagan, have done much to bring science to the masses. On that they should be supported. Yes sometimes their brevity in describing something may by some, be labeled as "pop sciencey", but by the same token, I would remind those few of the words and narrative of the following, that I have posted a few times before.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michio Kaku was the "pop-star" that got me interested in science discussion, but it quickly became clear that the woo kept his name bouncing around far more than his scientific rigor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Michio Kaku was the "pop-star" that got me interested in science discussion, but it quickly became clear that the woo kept his name bouncing around far more than his scientific rigor. 

Read his book, "Hyperspace" about the possibility of higher dimensions, in an effort to unite quantum mechanics and GR...Interesting read, although it has been around 15 years? since I did read it.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found it interesting ( and funny ) that some social media rep at Steak-Umm ( of all places ! ) had the insight to correct N deGrasse Tyson in such an eloquent and 'truthful' fashion.
Seems someone at Steak-Umm is well versed in the scientific method.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MigL said:

I just found it interesting ( and funny ) that some social media rep at Steak-Umm ( of all places ! ) had the insight to correct N deGrasse Tyson in such an eloquent and 'truthful' fashion.
Seems someone at Steak-Umm is well versed in the scientific method.

Consider a spherical cow, sliced thinly and pan-fried....

Maybe we should reach out and ask them to join? Open a thread about how beefy science has become in the 21st century and they'll just HAVE to respond. I think that's the problem they have with Neal; they prefer steak, and Tyson is a big name in chicken. Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.