Neil deGrasse Tyson exclusive: “I don’t know what kind of democracy that is, if you’re gonna cherry-

[DonViejo]

Neil deGrasse Tyson exclusive: “I don’t know what kind of democracy that is, if you’re gonna cherry-pick … science because it conflicts with your philosophy”

Exclusive Salon q-and-a: Neil deGrasse Tyson takes on climate deniers, challenges scientists to speak up for truth

LINDSAY ABRAMS

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a force. A respected astrophysicist with a custom space-theme wardrobe who moonlights as a late-night television guest, the director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium, a living meme and, in his current star turn, host of the hit series “Cosmos,” a reboot of the Carl Sagan original, he’s also, without doubt, a sizable thorn in the side of the religious right.

What he is not, Tyson tells Salon, is an advocate. He trusts, instead, that science will speak for itself. But insofar as science has a human vessel, Tyson’s inarguably embraced the role. And so long as the science demands it, he’s never been one to shy away from controversy — be it demoting Pluto from its planetary status or, more recently, representing the emerging consensus on climate change as it comes under attack from religious and industry forces.

Tyson didn’t write the script for “Cosmos” — that was the work of Ann Druyan, who told my colleague Andrew O’Hehir that she’s surprised critics talk about the show “as if Neil has had something to do with its inception or its writing.” But she acknowledges, too, that part of getting the message across is having the right messenger, and Tyson’s certainly risen to the occasion. He articulated his own take on climate-change deniers — “people, if they begin to lose their wealth, they change their mind real fast, I’ve found — particularly in a capitalist culture” — during an appearance as Chris Hayes’ much-vaunted guest on MSNBC. By now, he’s become invested in this specific iteration of the culture wars to the point that Fox News saw fit to take him and his “white liberal nerd” admirers down a few pegs.

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/23/neil_degrasse_tyson_exclusive_i_don%E2%80%99t_know_what_kind_of_democracy_that_is_if_you%E2%80%99re_gonna_cherry_pick_science_because_it_conflicts_with_your_philosophy/

[merrily]

1. The US is a republic; and I am not sure what either a democracy or a republic has to do with

cherry-picking science.

Ancient Athens was a democracy. People there believed Zeus ruled the universe and wielded thunderbolts.

Ancient Rome was a Republic (theoretically, anyway). People there believed Jupiter did much the same.

On the other hand, being truly scientific under an absolute monarch or even a theocracy is certainly possible. Science developed under pharaohs and Caesars, as well as under elected Presidents.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of cherry picking science or of dictators. But the form of government doesn't seem to have much to do with whether one is scientific or not.

[mopinko]

2. unless you consider an informed citizenry

essential to a democracy......

[Action_Patrol]

6. It's maddening.

If you do, the US is a heartbreaking and incredibly frustrating place. People have the access to unlimited wells of knowledge yet remain willfully ignorant.
It gives me a nose bleed.

[merrily]

8. An informed citizenry is desirable in ANY form of government, esp. in a

democracy. But not essential, no. As I previously stated, the Ancient Athenians (unlike the US), actually did have a democracy. Yet, they believed thunderbolts were thrown by Zeus when he got angry.

And the fact that a good portion of USians are climate deniers does not change our form of government.

Both democracies and republics are determined by voting, not by knowing science or not. Is that fact so hard to admit?

[mopinko]

20. iirc, athens fell. nt

[merrily]

23. Unlike the US, Athens was actually a democracy. But your point is?

Athens was a democracy, though not universally democratic. Athens did not fall because its citizens believed in Zeus and were totally oblivious to the possibility of global warming. Moreover, the existence in a citizenry of wrong beliefs does not alter the form of government. And I said that an informed citizenry is desirable in any form of government (including the republican form of government that the US adopted).

[NorthCarolina]

7. In actuality though, I believe the US is neither; rather it is an oligarchy. nt

[merrily]

10. I would say plutocracy, but, we do vote for representatives, which is the hallmark of a republic.

Whether they in fact represent us or only the top 10% is a separate issue. And both an oligarchy and a plutocracy can exist within a republican form of government. I think we've been a plutocracy within a republic since day one.

In any event, we are not a democracy. Never have been. Though with the internet, I think maybe we could be. Whether that would be a good idea or not is another issue entirely.

[NorthCarolina]

11. We vote primarily for candidates that have been previously vetted and approved by

corporate interests, who then subsequently finance their campaigns. We don't really vote, we endorse.

[merrily]

12. Nonetheless, we have a right to vote for representatives.

Many of us neither vote nor endorse, but the form of government is still a republic.

You can parse and slice and dice all you want, but our form of government is a republic.

[NorthCarolina]

13. US as a true Republic = fantasy. nt

[merrily]

16. Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Which Republic was ever a "true Republic" in the sense that those who ruled really, literally represented the best interests of those who voted for them, rather than the interests of the rich and/or powerful? Certainly not Ancient Rome, which was the model the Framers chose over Ancient Athens.

A plutocracy or an oligarchy within a Republican form of government may well be the only kind of Republic the world has ever known. If you get to vote on those who theoretically represent you, then you have a Republican form of government, no matter what.

[Chathamization]

22. We vote for candidates chosen in primaries that most people are too apathetic to pay attention to.

The corporate interests aren’t forcing anyone to vote for the same people over and over again.

[merrily]

24. True, but they are donating to their campaigns, which, in

an age of TV and radio advertising has influence.

Yes, we are also to blame, but, to an extent, we are as well incidental to the game, at least on the national level.

I vacillate between blaming us more and blaming them more, though I never exonerate either group.

[Chathamization]

27. Yes, but it’s a person’s choice whether they base their vote information about the candidate or TV

ads. Oligarchy is a poor term for a population that chooses to ignore who they vote for. That doesn’t make the powers that be blameless, but in the end we’re the ones who decide who gets elected.

[merrily]

29. As stated, I don't exonerate them or us.

However, I might revise your statement.

in the end we’re the ones who decide who gets elected.

Barring a write in vote--and it's questionable who gets elected because of write in votes--we get to decide only between and among the candidates with whom we are presented.

[Chathamization]

30. Not really. We can choose to run if we want, we can choose to help people we like get on the ballot.

Most don’t, but that doesn’t mean we can’t (and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of people who do this every election cycle). We have the ability, even if, again, most choose to ignore it.

[merrily]

31. You can choose to run, but, if you don't have money or "pull," often

that is nothing more than an empty gesture. Especially if you happen to have a day job that you need to keep. And especially if we are not talking only offices like school board member.

Moreover, not all of us are even candidate material.

So, if that is the only alternative you have, I would say it is not of wide application.

[Chathamization]

32. Not the only alternative; as I said, you can also help those you like get on the ballot and

encourage them to run. It’s completely viable to run as a non-corporate progressive outsider candidate as long as there are people who will vote for such a candidate. If there isn’t, that is a problem, but people being politically apathetic or deciding to vote for bad people isn’t an oligarchy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. The full quote shows he was talking about how political debate has degenerated

With any issue that comes up, when we have an emergent scientific truth, we can’t just sit back and watch people debate a scientific truth — they should be debating the politics that would follow from the emergent scientific truth. That’s really what the debates should be about, but they haven’t been. And I’m disturbed by that, because I don’t know what kind of democracy that is, if you’re gonna run around cherry-picking the results of science, of emergent scientific consensus because it conflicts with your philosophy and you want to be responsible for the governance of the nation, which involves thoughtful planning for the future of our health and our wealth, the state of the economy, all of the above.

[merrily]

21. That still has nothing to do with a democracy vs. a republic vs. a monarchy.

Assuming no one executes you, you can have rigorous science, even in theocracy or a monarchy. Galileo did. Yes, he got punished, but he did not cherry pick.

There was certainly political debate under a monarchy when Jonathan Swift wrote. Political debate can deteriorate in a democracy or a monarchy.

And the fact remains that the US is not a democracy in the first instance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. He didn't say anything about a republic, or a monarchy

And, by the way, your 'fact' depends on 'democracy' being defined as "using the system that Athens briefly did". If you want to talk to modern people, in English, you should find out about the generally accepted meanings of words like 'democracy', over the past few centuries, before complaining how they are used.

I have never found a conversation with someone who insists that the USA is not a democracy anything other than a waste of time - it's worse than someone who demands that infinitives must never be split, since you couldn't do that in Latin. So don't expect any more answers.

[merrily]

26. Whether he used those words or not is totally irrelevant.

The fact remains that existence within a society of climate deniers or other wrong thinkers has nothing to do with the form of government. Neither does the presence of scientific geniuses. Neither does the existence of great political debate or deteriorated political debate.

Yes, great political debate may lead a people to change their form of government, but that is a separate issue.


You can have scientific geniuses and political geniuses within any form of government and scientific dolts and political dolts within any form of government. Cherry picking science has nothing to do with the form of governmnt.

If you want to talk to modern people, in English, you should find out about the generally accepted meanings of words like 'democracy', over the past few centuries, before complaining how they are used.

I am well aware. And, I would say that one should know and understand their original meanings as well as modern usage (which, btw, is not uniform, even in dictionaries). Most people don't and, for reasons I won't go into right now, I think it's very important that they understand that a democracy is different from a republic.

I have never found a conversation with someone who insists that the USA is not a democracy anything other than a waste of time

-

And yet, you posted to me twice. And neither time did you show that anything I said was incorrect.

So don't expect any more answers.

I didn't expect any of your posts to me. So whether you post to me again or not is a matter of indifference to me.

No, that's not true. Since you went personally insulting to me without having been personally insulted by me, I do have a very slight preference. I am certainly not yearning for more personal insults from you as a substitute for analysis by you. But, it won't bother me much either way.

[awoke_in_2003]

37. A republic is a representative democracy...

always has been- well, at least until Rush got his listeners believing the line "we aren't a democracy, we are a republic". And now you are echoing it.

[DirkGently]

3. I love that his Cosmos reboot infuriated conservatives.

Didn't they want "equal time" to argue Biblical cosmology at one point?

[tclambert]

4. If they want equal time for Biblical cosmology, we must have giant turtle time!

And Flying Spaghetti Monster time! May His noodly appendages bless you.

[hueymahl]

5. Q. If a giant turtle holds up the earth, what holds up the giant turtle?

A. It's turtles all the way down!

Also the name of a great song and album:

[DirkGently]

9. Well there's elephants ON the flying turtle, see ...

[Half-Century Man]

17. Discworld.

Ankh-Morpork is the galactic cultural center.

[DirkGently]

19. Exactly. Just as likely as Biblical cosmology. And more fun! n/t

[pampango]

14. Not respecting facts/science is common to all forms of government. In dictatorships,

the the 'fact' is that the dictator is a wise man who is taking care of his children (citizens) who are not able to take care of themselves in the world we live in. If you do not recognize that 'fact' you stand to spend some time in jail and be tortured or killed.

Dictatorship run as smoothly as they have throughout history whether citizens understand real facts/science or not. (Violence and the threat of violence are quite effective motivators for governments to enforce their will.) Democracies rely on a informed and reasonably intelligent populace if they have any hope of being around for the long run.

[raouldukelives]

15. As long as the science doesn't imperil corporate profits but instead helps them its golden.

It's when the science points at problems that the corporations get jittery. Luckily, they can count on investors to continue pumping money into them so they can continue pumping propaganda into us all.
If it weren't for the fine efforts they devote their lives too, we'd all have to face the truth.

[conservaphobe]

28. Science and reason should trump faith and emotion.

Always.

Results trump how people feel about something.

[harun]

34. Faith is about what something means.

Science is about what something does.

Apples to oranges buddy.

[conservaphobe]

35. That was in regards to public policy. nt

[harun]

38. Ah, got it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. i find that anti-vaccination folk are the liberal equivalent of climate denial right wingers

equally stupid. equally cherry picking data. equal pretense to really understand a science that takes years of higher education to understand.

[mopinko]

36. the anti-gmo people are much the same.

every time they point to some study, a brief look will show it to be bad science. this debate comes up on facebook for me. i was stunned to see someone with a very nuanced view of a local issue be a just talking point tosser on ag tech. then insisted that i must be the ignorant one.

i love humanity, it's people that make me crazy.