You must log in or register to comment.
Eh, it’s more about the enthusiasm than the qualifications. Plus, while Bill Nye is no angel, at least he’s not a Putin supporter.
Bill Nye is an entertainer / educator. I’ve met plenty of people with PHDs and masters who couldn’t present a basic concept because they’re too caught up in technicalities and not understanding what it’s like to teach and get people interested in something.
I’ll happily take a minimally qualified Science Guy that inspires thousands or millions of people to get into science than the most sciency scientist in all science that only ever inspired people to punch people.
Furthermore, formal education is only one part of knowledge. Gatekeeping the word “scientist” is pointless. Maybe he has equivalent knowledge, skills, and ability to someone with a more advanced education. Maybe he doesn’t. Formal education is just the usual route, not the only route.
Is there some controversy around Bill Nye that I haven’t heard?
He has been a leading science communicator covering hundreds of topics for many decades, and is only human, of course there are going to be shortcomings.
He has a reputation of just being an unpleasant dick and difficult to work with. Nothing super problematic to my knowledge, just a bad personality.
I’ve also heard that he gets a lot of weird people who are overly attached to the idea of him getting their fantasies crushed when they meet him. Realize that a lot of those “I met him and he was rude” people might not be completely honest about their encounters. Think along the lines of Paris Syndrome, but for a person.
Hm, never heard of Paris Syndrome; guess you learn something every day, thanks.
Definitely possible, it’s just a little too consistent for me to think it’s all people meeting their hero and nobody just trying to do their job and getting treated poorly.
I mean, I got the info about other people being weird around Bill Nye from a fan who went to one of his talks. According to her, lot of people who asked questions were asking him questions they were hyper specific to their chosen field that Nye would have no way of knowing unless that was the field he was working in. His specific field is education and science commutation. Without preparation, he’s only going to be able to answer in depth questions in that field.
Fwiw Nye does seem to be very chummy with Neil de Grasse Tyson, and that guy’s issues are far more well attested to. From the smug poor media literacy, to reports of being professionally hard to work with, to his sexual harrassment allegations. I’m not especially inclined to give Nye the benefit of the doubt given the company he chooses to keep.
I had to look up the sexual harassment stuff. That’s from 2019 and it was either cleared or never substantiated.
Even if Tyson is a bit of a lolcow on twitter, there are far worse things to be.
I’m just really suspicious of how popular it is to discredit science communicators while anti-intellectualism is so pervasive in society. It’s far easier to tear something down then it is to build something.
I find it fascinating that they’re out for blood when it comes to Tyson and Nye, but they ignore the rapist in the whitehouse…
Removed by mod
He’s more than just “a bit of a lolcow”. He discredits science by being an arsehole and inserting science into places it obviously does not belong. He’s the epitome of that stereotypical “STEM bro” that looks down upon the arts and humanities. Here’s one anecdote about him I found:
Just saw a clip of his on Instagram about whether “fahrenheit units are better for the weather” as opposed to Celsius.
He starts off with “well, the weather doesn’t care about how we measure it. It just is what it is, regardless of our units. What you mean is that fahrenheit makes it easy for us to understand the weather…” And then goes on to discuss it.
Like… Fuck off man. Everyone knows what the person meant, and he’s just being a smartass about it.
He’s also gone on “proving” that Santa can’t be real with real physics. That’s not stuff that makes people interested in science. It’s just dickish and does exactly the opposite.
Here’s an anecdote from someone who admits to overall liking him:
I still listen to [his podcast], but I’m gonna spoil it to you: just listen how often he interrupts people. Every question being asked he needs do change or add something and then “complains” that the section or question takes too long.
There’s also a clip with Joe Rogan where he’s not even listening but just rambles on, and keep interrupting.
And finally, I get annoyed by his words of wisdoms where he’s recycling the same sentences in his genius complex voice.
The claim there is that this is just one “side” of NDT and that his “real” side, when it’s allowed to show through, is a much better communicator of the wonder of science. My take is that we don’t get to see this “authentic” version of him nearly often enough to give him credit for it.
He has that bad habit that a lot of smart people (particularly physicists, for some reason) have, which is to think that because they’re smart in their one area, they must also be smart in others. He is certainly nowhere near as bad as some (looking at you, Sabine Hossenfelder), but he does have a nasty habit particularly when talking about the history of science (which, first and foremost, is history). One point that he’s particularly fond of (having repeated it regularly online as well as including it in his Cosmos remake) is the mediaeval flat earth myth.
As for the sexual misconduct allegations, they weren’t proven, but even if you take NDT entirely at his own word…it might not rise to the level of criminal misconduct, but it sure is creepy as fuck behaviour. Grabbing under someone’s dress straps? Inviting a subordinate home for a private meal?
But it’s not clear to me that we should just take him at his word. His own post defending himself, particularly the 1980s case, spends an awful lot of time attacking the character of the accuser. Whereas in the other cases he at least attempts to play it in the respectful “oh I can see how you might have gotten the wrong impression and I’m sorry” manner, here it’s just “no, you’re clearly my intellectual inferior and therefore why should anybody believe you?”
As for him being “cleared”:
According to Watson, the so-called “investigations” Tyson was referring to consisted of the following: “I had one 30-minute sit-down with a Fox HR representative and a 45 minute-hour sit-down with a man from a private company. I gave them both lengthy lists of extremely reliable people who could corroborate my story, text messages from that time, emails NDT had sent to me, etc. None of the people I gave contact info for were ever contacted by these companies.”
In his defence, I will say, I’ve seen a lot of people accusing him of also getting the physics wrong on certain things. And at least one case of him getting into a conversation with Richard Dawkins where he supposedly got something wrong about DNA. My read on most of the situations of this sort that I’ve seen are that they’re either minor errors that are naturally going to occur in off-the-cuff discussions, or stem from an imprecision of language where the actual point he is trying to convey was totally reasonable. Maybe, given he’s a science communicator, he should try better to get these things right, and be ready to correct them in the comments or in editing when they happen and are pointed out, which is something he seems not to do. But I don’t consider this a slight on him as a person at all. Not at the scale that I’ve seen.
I saw Tyson take such a dismissive attitude toward the threats of something like AI, specifically, AGI/ASI with the flippant “but we’d just shut it off!” kind of thing, it really grinded my gears.
However, I guess I’m falling into the same trap that so many do - expecting this guy to be all things to every aspect of anything that smacks of “science” and that’s just not a realistic expectation. I’ll stick with him on things like the re-make/update of Cosmos and ignore his random hot takes on virtually everything else. Probably also when he’s putting pen to paper vs. the hot take kind of thing on a talk show. He seems to be a frequent guest on talk shows and I remember a few being quite cringe at times.
I seem to remember a certain kind of person (usually your local WELLAXKTUALLY guy) getting butthurt about the way Sagan was being held up (in their view) as the arbiter of science or something, repeating “he’s not a real scientist he’s just a generalist” as a constant refrain.
Fuck it, who cares. If guys like this are good at getting whole generations of people interested in science, more power to them…science could use all the PR it can get in the age of Idiocracy.
If guys like this are good at getting whole generations of people interested in science, more power to them
That’s the problem here though. He might be good at getting a certain kind of STEM bro into science, but his smart attitude turns away heaps more. He contributes to the perception of science as being hostile to women, at the same time as reinforcing the perception of science as elitist and exclusionary. He might’ve fit in well in the '90s and '00s, but unfortunately he’s around in the '10s and '20s.
Pretty much this. Met him once. He’s has no scandals, he’s just kind of a rude guy.
I had a friend tell a story once about how he was on a field trip and the class found out Bill Nye was in the building. But once Bill found out kids were on the way he escaped out a window to avoid them. I’m not sure how true that is, but its kinda funny.
Having personally interacted with him more times than I would like, and it was only 3, he’s just a massive jerk, and a self assured belittler.
He doesn’t respect people. I’m not sure he respects anyone other than those that can make his image better, and then it’s conditional and stops when they aren’t useful.
That’s disappointing.
His AMA was pretty bad.
How so?
It’s been a while and I don’t feel like going back there to refresh my memory.
Source or GTFO. Spreading rumours about people is a shitty thing to do.
I’ll be nice, but nobody owes it to you to source everything they say or look things up for you. Googling isn’t hard.
Nobody owes it to you to believe what you say either, but they offered you the chance to back up your words.
Granted they weren’t nice about it, but shit for shit leaves everyone covered in shit.
Removed by mod
Onlyfans already knew.
On a more serious note: If anyone can just claim anything in a conversation, that would be detrimental to any discussion. Either everybody makes up their own “facts” because no-one bothers proving everyone else’s version of a story (which is just everybody lying in everybody’s face); or everybody is constantly fact-checking everyone else, which makes the conversation take much longer than necessary.
You already have the source, or at least an idea in which context you got the information and how to find it again. It’s just common courtesy to share it the others rather than making them do the work, too.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
There is a time and topic for demanding rigorous discussion, and shit posting about Dolph Lundgren ain’t it. Insinuating dishonesty and demanding a source about something so unserious is like inserting yourself into a casual conversation to start an argument.
There was a clickbait NY Post article that I’d never link to, this article (archive) is more even handed.
This is confirmed by a search that’s faster than your comment so where’s your anger coming from?
Nye is more of if an educator than scientist. A lot like your average science teacher in high school.
Dolph is usually posted in this manner to put down Nye’s support for climate research, anti creationism, and other ‘political’ stands.
Wait why? Does he not support those views?
His views are easily found online. I’m commenting on the side by side comic meme and its implications.
Dolph is vegan and seems to not care about religion, but mostly stays out of politics.
So he’s probably on the same page as Nye I’m guessing.
He’s a science guy, not a scientist.
He sure does like to pretend he’s the latter
Based on what exactly? I’ve gone to one of his events, he’s pretty explicit about being a science educator. I can’t say I’ve seen him claim otherwise anywhere, though people definitely like to put those words in his mouth.
The Information Age - the age of tailoring information to support our personal anger impulses.
He’s explicit about being a science communicator and welcomes that discussion.
citation needed
aw did the science guy hurt your feefees?
show me where the bad man TOLD YOU SOMETHING OBVIOUS THAT RUINED YOUR DAY.
Oh wow, didn’t know Bill Nye also has a toxic, Rick and Morty style army of shit slinging white knights
it’s ok, calm down calm down… just explain what your beef with the science bro is.
not hard, articulate your issues man. let it off your chest, I can tell it’s really really bothering you.
I personally found his style really abrasive in the first and only recent show I’ve seen. Reddit was shitting all over him too, stating mostly that he’s a prick and not friendly IRL at all.
That said what he advocates for is right.
I personally found his style really abrasive
the goofball science schtick doesn’t work for you? I know him from his old tv show from my youth.
Reddit was shitting all over him too, stating mostly that he’s a prick and not friendly IRL at all.
well that’s… kinda an endorsement for me lol. most of reddit is a prick and not friendly irl from my own experiences.
appreciate the reply
well that’s… kinda an endorsement for me lol
From me too. Reddit wasn’t mad because he’s ‘not friendly’, they were mad that Bill was “too woke” and featured a song and dance number by Rachel Bloom that even I found a little cringy tbh. Not because of the message, but I just think it was kind of poorly done. The only people I’ve ever heard say a bad word about Bill were climate deniers, anti vaxxers etc.
I’m proud of Bill for not backing down from politically charged issues, when he could easily ignore them to get more viewers/supporters. Scientists shouldn’t let politics interfere with Science and Science Communicators shouldn’t either.
I’ve never seen the originals, as he’s not that popular in Europe. My only exposure is “Bill Nye Saves The World” on Netflix. I couldn’t get past the first episode.
I’m a big fan of Sagan, and while I don’t think NDT’a Cosmos: A Space time Odyssey was as good as the first series, I was mostly looking at Nye’s show with the same lense and trying to draw comparisons between them.
Removed by mod
bill nye is not a scientist, and he never claimed to be one. He is a science communicator, a role he has done well for some time.
Same with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
He specifically claims to be a science guy. Not a scientist.
…
BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!
NDT is a pompous ass
Sure but watching him on nova when I was a kid is a big reason I got so into science and engineering so I don’t really care
Unfortunately same with Bill Nye. He seemed so pissed at getting recognized by people at a symposium.
Like geeze dude sorry you inspired people as kids and encouraged them to pursue science and they’re excited to meet you.
It’s a downside of being educated and fascinated by what you’ve learned.
He kisses himself in the mirror
But only on the lips.
He also has credible sexual assault allegations against him.
I’m educated and fascinated by what I’ve learned too, and I’ve managed to not be an pompous ass… Oh wait, nevermind.
Mark rober manages just fine without being a pompous ass
Here is Mark Rober shilling for Anduril, an AI weapon company.
Well shit. Veritasium? Smarter every day?
Smarter Every Day pushed Young Earth Creation talking points in a video where he tears up remembering his time developing guided missiles :(
I liked Mark Rober until about ten seconds ago, too :(
Its a raw youtube link (I’m a cave-dweller) so I’m putting it here: https://youtu.be/VPSm9gJkPxU?t=1615
Not the same with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
I’m not his biggest fan, but I fully respect his scientific credentials. He has a PhD from Columbia. He published at least a dozen papers. There’s no question that he’s a scientist, a manager of scientists, as well as a science communicator.
The problem is that his success seems to have destroyed his humility. It’s not that he brags about being so incredibly smart. It’s more that he doesn’t ever seem to sit back and say “hey, maybe this isn’t something where my contributions won’t be appreciated”. I think his science communication is doing more good than harm. I think he’s a great role model for little black boys who think all scientists are white, or that they’re all stuffy nerds with no personality. But, I think he’s at his best when he’s in a show where there’s a script and an editor. On social media and on free-form podcasts, he comes off as a know-it-all ass.
He is a know-it-all ass. He’s a self-important dickhead. But I appreciate his role in getting young black kids seeing a role model that they can relate to. That’s far more important than his ego.
Ha! It makes it sound like you’re saying that young black kids are self-important dickheads and that’s why he’s a good role model.
But, yeah, I know what you’re trying to say. Despite his social media presence, the image that kids generally see is a very positive one. He’s a somewhat stylish (in his own way) guy, who clearly has personality, and is a very accomplished scientist. I just cringe any time he comments on something not related to astrophysics.
Exactly. He doesn’t need to ruin movies. We know that movies are for entertainment, it doesn’t need to be dissected as fact. And we certainly don’t need someone taking our escapism away from us. Let us have this, dude. We need this right now, including from the time he became prominent. He killed Pluto, which I guess is fine because it was accurate, but he didn’t need to shove himself into movies and try to ruin our very-much-needed escapism. It’s egotistical, and insulting, as if we don’t know that it’s a movie.
But, I think he’s at his best when he’s in a show where there’s a script and an editor. On social media and on free-form podcasts, he comes off as a know-it-all ass.
^ This. I still am miffed at his attitude in regards to considering the issues of AI on I forget which talk show, but he took the attitude of “we’d just pull the plug”.
Maybe when in a scripted format or in writing, he might be able to extrapolate a bit, but he just sounded like a layperson when it comes to the topic, and I honestly have no idea if he’s read or considered the kinds of things that, say, Nick Bostrom has put out there. It just sounded like some hot take man-on-the-street kind of response, talking about the problem as if we are talking about someone’s server running somewhere. It was just…facepalm.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a Phd in astrophysics and he has published a lot of papers. He is a scientist and a science communicator. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are not the same.
Neil does have a PhD. in astrophysics, however.
Neil regularly gets osmosis wrong and thinks it/distilled water can “suck minerals” from your body, something I was taught repeatedly in basic A&P, biology, and chemistry, that isnt true bc osmosis is the movement of water, not solutes.
Neil regularly says super dumb shit lol I don’t subscribe to him but I see random clips of him talking sometimes and not getting things right
Well, considering that’s not astrophysics, I can’t say I’m surprised. Not trying to defend the guy; he can be confidently wrong and a dick at times and should be more aware of what he doesn’t know. On the other hand, I’ve never heard anyone say anything bad about Bill.
Sure, but he has a Bachelor of Science degree. :)
Yeah, but that’s BS
And he is a Trump and Putin supporter. Fuck him.
I could only find this:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/06/dolph-lundgren-putin-sniper-rifles-interview.html
It mentions only Putin (which also sounds like a joke) and it’s from 2013 (before the annexation of Crimea).
Is there any more, and preferably recent, info?
I don’t care much about this guy specifically, but I wanted to chime in and say that I appreciate you looking for a source.
Maybe they’re confusing Dolph with Kevin Sorbo?
I think that’s bigger insult than calling him a Trump supporter
2013 was still after 2008 invasion of Georgia and many other signs that Putin is a ruthless dictator tbh. In 2017 he said Russia is lucky to have Putin.
Oof. Didn’t know that
There’s no evidence for that anywhere. Always ask for a source.
He took his role in Rocky IV too seriously.
Since we are talking science, let me paraphrase Carl Sagan:
“Claims require evidence”
Obligatory: Source?
Source: I made it the fuck up
Source?
Dolph or Bill?
Dolph… Bill Nye is a Queer and Trans supporter.
And a big plastics shill, unfortunately.
to be fair bill nye is using his degree and teaching rather than someone that just ditched his degree after he got it. in a job setting they will take bill nye over someone that hasnt used his degree in a while. some people. one is passionate about the stems while the other ones wasnt, some people get higher degrees just because of pressure in thier social circles and then end up hating it and leaving, there were alot of those people in college.
they are seeing someone as having more prestige and degree means they are more qualfied than someone that has more experience in the field.
If anything, in my 30 years I’ve learned degrees only mean so much. Someone without a degree but with actual on the job experience will out perform a new grad any day of the week.
Frankly the university system has become a way to make sure the poor stay poor.
i believe that too, unfortunately for stems its still archaic in the way it gains experience, plus its also gatekeeped too in a way too, like they gatekeep MD salaries, although not as aggressive, the profs at my school you can gauranteed one of them had money to go to harvard or some expensive school and come out with a job in hand, you can tell which one came from these top schools because they also give off an elitist attitude. one the gen chem prof was like that.
Bill is just a science guy after all. Not a science lord.
…Does Bill Nye need more qualifications to be an effective science educator?
He does not. This post is gatekeeping bullshit. The only thing that matters is knowledge of a subject. This shit reminds me of the worthless dumbfucks who immediately start asking for credentials when I tell them that their understanding of AI is nonsense.
the post thinks having more degrees means your more qualfied in that profession, and also prestige. experience and basic qualification> more degrees and prestige just because your an actor.
Whoever made this meme doesn’t know what exponentially means.
This is science, not math.
deleted by creator
I, too, spent longer than I ever should have thinking about this. My first thought was, they’re just using it in a linguistic sense, so it doesn’t matter that the exponent would have to be something very small to go from 1 qualification to 4. But then I thought, hm, I guess since there’s only 1 qualification for Bill, no exponent would be enough. But then I realized that grammatically the value in question is “qualification” and not “number of degrees”. The number of degrees is merely standing in as a heuristic proxy to illustrate qualification. This “qualification” scale makes the most the most sense if it’s between 0 and 1, representing percentiles of qualification. Therefore, the exponent applied to Bill’s qualifications must also be between 0 and 1 in order to increase the value to Lundgren’s. For a moment I thought this was the nail in the coffin for the original text, but of course the word “more” there again refers to the qualification, not to the exponent itself. This interpretation has the nice benefit that no matter what the exponent is, we always get a qualification value between 0 and 1. Hence I can conclude this is the only viable headcanon for this post.
What do you guys think is so special about a scientist.
They measure things and record data really well. They apply scientific principles and such.
They use lab equipment and usually have a very narrow scope on the things they are working on.
Do you think every scientist gets a nobel or something?
Scientist isn’t a thing. It’s like artist, a self-designation.
No, its a thing, people have the title “scientist.” Its just a job, tho.
My kid holds a Materials Science degree and worka as a Materials Scientist https://americanprofessionguide.com/materials-scientist-career/
and worka
It’sa you, Mario!
Eeii, mama mia!
Nuh-uh.
Just do a quick job search. I know plenty of scientists.
Researchers, professors, testers, archeologists, chemists, physicists, biologists.
Show me someone walking around with “scientist” on their lapel. It’s like a cartoon joke.
Staff scientists at work vanish into thin air upon receiving this profound take.
Staff assassins move in to protect them from staff ninjas.
What kinda essentialism is this? Artist is also absolutely a job title. Sure, you can self-describe as well, but there are people that get paid to be an artist.
I’m a warrior, a poet, an entrepreneur. Who says I’m not?
No one. Like I said, you can self-identify but it is also a title you can have from a job or similar.
You did say that. I’m corrected.
Bachelors of Science? I know you could argue that is applied to a lot of degrees, However one of my kids is a Materials Scientist. It is the Diploma and Job. https://americanprofessionguide.com/materials-scientist-career/
I’ll bet the bachelor of science degree is in something. BS in psychology. BS in materials (new to me). So you’re going to be a counselor, or a psychologist, or whatever a materialist is called other than materialist which doesn’t make sense.
I’m not sure what you are saying. Its not Materialist its Material Scientist, they study the science of materials and get a diploma in Materials Science, and the job is called Materials Scientist. Its basically Math, chemistry and metalurgial sciences rolled I into one discipline. Thus the link I posted, here’s another https://materials.princeton.edu/education/undergraduate/what-materials-science
It’s tragic that he never got to play a scientist who could smell crime.
More educated, you mean? Cuz to my knowledge only one of them works in science
He quit the Fulbright thing after two weeks though.
Yeah, but look at why he quit:
However, while preparing for the move to Boston, he was spotted in the nightclub where he worked in Sydney and was hired by Grace Jones as a bodyguard, and the two became lovers.[18] He moved with Jones to New York City, where he dabbled in modeling at the Zoli Agency but was described as “a bit too tall and muscular for a model’s size 40”.
It’s not like he said “this is too hard for me”, it’s more like he said “wait, I can have this other life instead?”
I’m not complaining or anything. Bro was banging peak Grace Jones and saw a better life than chemical engineering (maybe he saw god, she was smoking hot). Before this meme I thought he had a PhD and then I had to look up the scholar stuff.
Choice. A bold choice. Not a negative.
Exponential in which variable?
