deGrasse-Tyson on "controversial" Christmas message

Religion and Secularism
21
It depends if you give more weight to human history and the politics of calendars, or to Earth-scale physics.
Ah that doesn't make much sense. Newton's birth was human history… the calendar is a human construct. You could tick off any number of "legitimate" dates using the Chinese calendar, or Mayan calendar, or the Talmudic calendar, etc., etc. Of course they would all be referring to the same specific moment in time. What does make sense is
“Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them."
But if you want to be bitch about Newton, there are a few handles there ;- ) Wasn't he that freaky alchemist and ruthless Warden of the Mint and some say mad as a hatter (they even claim to have the hair clip that proves it.) But then that's one of the beauties of science, it's about the evidence collected and the scientific contributions themselves, not so much about the person… well at least in the best of all worlds :coolsmirk:
22
I simply get annoyed at some people's reaction to atheist comments that are far less objectionable than religious comments that are made toward atheism every day. But no matter how aggressive and downright fear-mongering theists' remarks are they are accepted and few people make a point about their objectionable content or tone. Yet when non-believers make comments--usually far less aggressive--they are excoriated for them, as if they were upsetting some kind of accepted standard that allows believers to say anything they wish while non-believers are treated as pariahs for expressing an opposing view.
Exactly! I'm always surprised when people describe, for example, Richard Dawkins as being abrasive, aggressive, arrogant, etc. In reality, Dawkins' is rather soft-spoken, extremely polite, and he rarely ever raises his voice. He criticizes religion because, well, religion need to be criticized. It amazes me when Dawkins debates a theist calmly and politely while the theist acts cranky and childish--and then people say Dawkins was mean and disrespectful. Talk about a double standard!
23

Neil’s Christmas tweet is false.

Newton made many contributions. But THE world changing contribution was Principia.

And, indeed, Tyson seems to think Newton did Principia before he turned 26. He lays out his imagined time here: My Man, Sir Isaac Newton.

Tyson says a friend asked Newton why do planets orbit in ellipses? Newton supposedly said I don’t know, I’ll get back to you. Newton goes home, invents integral and differential calculus. And then comes back with the answer. And then Newton turns 26.

It was in Principia that Newton explained elliptical orbit as well as Kepler’s laws. And it was Edmund Halley’s famous question on the shape of orbits that prompted Newton to write Principia.

Halley asked the question in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s.

There is so much wrong with Tyson’s imagined timeline and his claims regarding Isaac Newton. See historian Thony Christie’s critique: Why doesn’t he just shut up?

In a nut shell, Tyson has Newton single handedly doing in two months on a dare what were actually the collaborative efforts of many people over many years.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is stunningly bad at history.

24

Welcome to the forum. Interesting first post.

1 Like
25

Thank you.

While badly confused, Tyson’s imagined history actually seems flattering to Newton.

Until Tyson uses it to give Newton a starring role in his cautionary tale against belief in Intelligent Design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXFPh4H5t4U&t=360s as well as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8&t=3740s

Newton could not explain the stability of the solar system. He suggested God would intervene now and then to restore order to the solar system. Tyson claims that Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God.

Laplace’s perturbation theory somewhat explains the stability of our solar system. Tyson tells us that it is a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have whipped out in an afternoon if he hadn’t had God on the brain. After all Newton single handedly invented calculus in just two months on a dare!

This second episode is even more confused and wrong than the first.

First off, Laplace’s perturbation theory isn’t a simple extension of calculus. Modeling the chaotic paths of moons, planets and stars in multi body systems is fiendishly difficult. There was even a recent television series based on this fact: “The Three Body Problem”.

Secondly, Newton did not just stop. He returned again and again to the problem of modeling n-body systems. In particular he invested a great deal of time and effort attempting the model the 3-body system of the earth, moon and sun.

As did Euler, Lagrange, and d’Alembert. And Laplace. It was a popular challenge for mathematicians in Newton’s time as well as the following decades and centuries.

And Lapace built on their efforts. His perturbation theory was the culmination of a century of effort of five of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived.

And Neil will tell you it’s a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have done in an afternoon.

Neil’s claims are false and deeply disrespectful to Newton.

Tyson has a number of fabricated histories attacking religion. So why is he endorsed by self proclaimed skeptics like Dawkins, Shermer, Novella, Harris et al? Are these “skeptics” credulous? Or perhaps they are okay with using false history to push the narrative so long as not too many people notice.

Tyson has been spreading these fictions since at least the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference (where Dawkins and Tyson met). And he continues to tell these stories to this day. It has been almost two decades he has been spreading this false history. It should be a scandal that his misinformation remains in circulation.

27

NDT is such a good science communicator. Explains scientific complexities very well. Bravo !!!