Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Children do not read horoscopes!"
tags:
Stumble ThisTyson on the state of science in America.
|
▲
2
▼
|
|
The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet Book added by: kronosposeidon 
|
|
▲
0
▼
|
|
The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist Book added by: kronosposeidon
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztLZcvtVIo4
...somebody make babies with this man and help his code propagate (i'm such a romantic)
apparently if you dont have $1000 or miss the free talk at UTA or decide to go see kimya dawson and do it with some other nerd instead of him while youre in florida, youre fucked.
America, stupid and proud.
And to anyone who again calls me elitist: you are damned right I'm elitist. Bill Maher said it best; our country could use some elitism and intellectualism. The fact that we see intellectuals as being somehow bad shows the misplaced pride this dumbass country has with being "average joes." Fuck Joe the Plumber, we need Einsteins.
I think there were 3 parts to his answer.
1. There's pro-science media available.
2. Kids aren't the problem, adults are the problem.
3. Science funding is such a good deal, we'll have no choice but fund it.
#1: This doesn't seem to address the statistics that show US students on average lagging behind students from other countries. (If you look at only the top half of students in each country, however, it would probably be more even, and the top half are where tomorrow's science and technology professionals are drawn from, but that's not the kind of thing Neil would talk about.)
#2: Today's kids will be tomorrow's horoscope-reading adults, so I'm not sure what he meant by this. Maybe he meant they'll only turn out to be superstitious if we raise them to be, so we should promote a culture of science.
#3: This sounds like a normative statement (we ought to have no choice but fund it), but it's presented as a positivistic statement (we will have no choice but fund it). Science funding (e.g. the budget of the National Institutes of Health) is currently at a historic low as a percentage of GDP, so his point doesn't seem consistent with the data.
I think it's nice for a public intellectual to be so oriented toward fun, but imho the reality is that there are costs to that attitude. I admire him for the great job he's doing as a science advocate, but I think it's good to encourage attention for the other science advocates who are less fun and more about data precision without caring about which way the data goes.
1. There's pro-science media available.
correction. pro-science media bias
V.B. Wigglesworth wakes at noon,
Washes, shaves and very soon
Is at the lab; he reads his mail,
Swings a tadpole by the tail,
Undoes his coat, removes his hat,
Dips a spider in a vat
Of alkaline, phones the press,
Tells them he is F.R.S.,
Subdivides six protocells,
Kills a rat by ringing bells,
Writes a treatise, edits two
Symposia on "Will man do?,"
Gives a lecture, audits three,
Has the sperm club in for tea,
Pensions off an ageing spore,
Cracks a test tube, takes some pure
Science and applies it, finds,
His hat, adjusts it, pulls the blinds,
Instructs the jellyfish to spawn,
And, by one o'clock, is gone.
>> ^chilaxe:
1. There's pro-science media available.
correction. pro-science media bias
What do you mean by that? You're using a computer to voice your opinion, so it seems like you're a supporter of science.
*looks up at the comments above*
>.>
lol,
I respect a good rant! Upvote.
I read the comics every morning as a kid, and also my horoscope ... I knew it didn't mean anything really but it was fun to do ...
Now, as an adult, I don't read my horoscope anymore, but I still read comics (web comics usually).