4 ms·

His very first example of a "hard target", string theory, has been criticized repeatedly by Neil deGrasse Tyson (and many others), one of the people he explicit

His very first example of a "hard target", string theory, has been criticized repeatedly by Neil deGrasse Tyson (and many others), one of the people he explicitly accuses of being "in tribe". The rest of the article is downhill from there; I see numerous other errors/inaccuracies just from a skim. Seems like these are just a bunch of substance-free attacks from a contrarian. Sure you can find some individual people saying some questionable and unsubstantiated things, but his broader claim of groupthink doesn't hold water.

bena 4y ago
I think you're conflating multiple groups. Think of each thing as their own group. "String theory" people are a group, "simulation" people are another group. While some of the string theory group may also be simulation people, it's not a guarantee. And I think that's the problem overall with his essay. There is no big group here. There are lots of groups and people are members of some and are against others. It's also disingenuous to call someone not skeptical of an issue just because they disagree with you. It's quite possible that Neil deGrasse Tyson has considered the simulation question critically and skeptically, and still come to the conclusion he has. The other major issue is that it's all very surface level. I don't know how much time he was given, so he may have picked topics he disagrees with and presented people that agreed with them to demonstrate that there can be opposing views even among notable people in the field. The core idea is one that is just kind of not needed to be said anyway. Everyone, when presented with the idea, "We should be skeptical of even scientific claims", will probably say "Well, no shit, that's how science works". So it's an idea people already think they do. And it really just gives them ammunition to claim other people aren't doing it enough.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > It's quite possible that Neil deGrasse Tyson has considered the simulation question critically and skeptically, and still come to the conclusion he has. That's possible but I wouldn't bet on it. He's not a philosopher, he's a science entertainer who runs a movie theater. The meat of his career is commentary on popular sciency subjects, most of them very far his actual academic expertise (astrophysics.) I figured this out after watching his twitter account for a while. Wall-to-wall poorly conceived hot takes on popular subjects that he obviously didn't put much thought into. If he thinks he can get hired for interviews/talks/books talking about simulation theory, I believe he'd do it even if he personally considered it to be unscientific nonsense.
  - bena 4y ago
    Either way is likely, but I don't think the position of "they have a different position from me, therefore they are not thinking critically" is a good one in general. Now, I'll probably never get to actually talk to Tyson on simulation theory, so I'll never be able to ply him with any question I have about his position. Or to ask if he considered certain other points of view. Or to question certain gaps that need to be covered in order to make a simulation, etc. But I'll not assume that he hasn't critically considered the information presented to him. I'll also not accuse him of not approaching it critically, because whether or not he has, he probably believes he has. So it's a non-starter of a conversation.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Everyone, when presented with the idea, "We should be skeptical of even scientific claims", will probably say "Well, no shit, that's how science works". Considering what we went through for the last couple years with Trust The Science (which is very well documented on the internet), it is impressive that so many people still believe this to be true. Psychologically, it seems quite similar to how people often hold allegiance to any ideological organization despite its obvious issues.
ChancyChance 4y ago
If you would call out the inaccuracies and cite why you think they are, that would be far more useful and helpful to the discussion than just complaining and waving vaguely ... "over there" as where the errors lay.
marcosdumay 4y ago
I really liked how non-skeptical he was about his beliefs on the section about war.

bena 4y ago

I think you're conflating multiple groups. Think of each thing as their own group. "String theory" people are a group, "simulation" people are another group. While some of the string theory group may also be simulation people, it's not a guarantee. And I think that's the problem overall with his essay. There is no big group here. There are lots of groups and people are members of some and are against others. It's also disingenuous to call someone not skeptical of an issue just because they disagree with you. It's quite possible that Neil deGrasse Tyson has considered the simulation question critically and skeptically, and still come to the conclusion he has. The other major issue is that it's all very surface level. I don't know how much time he was given, so he may have picked topics he disagrees with and presented people that agreed with them to demonstrate that there can be opposing views even among notable people in the field. The core idea is one that is just kind of not needed to be said anyway. Everyone, when presented with the idea, "We should be skeptical of even scientific claims", will probably say "Well, no shit, that's how science works". So it's an idea people already think they do. And it really just gives them ammunition to claim other people aren't doing it enough.

stametseater 4y ago
> It's quite possible that Neil deGrasse Tyson has considered the simulation question critically and skeptically, and still come to the conclusion he has. That's possible but I wouldn't bet on it. He's not a philosopher, he's a science entertainer who runs a movie theater. The meat of his career is commentary on popular sciency subjects, most of them very far his actual academic expertise (astrophysics.) I figured this out after watching his twitter account for a while. Wall-to-wall poorly conceived hot takes on popular subjects that he obviously didn't put much thought into. If he thinks he can get hired for interviews/talks/books talking about simulation theory, I believe he'd do it even if he personally considered it to be unscientific nonsense.
- bena 4y ago
  Either way is likely, but I don't think the position of "they have a different position from me, therefore they are not thinking critically" is a good one in general. Now, I'll probably never get to actually talk to Tyson on simulation theory, so I'll never be able to ply him with any question I have about his position. Or to ask if he considered certain other points of view. Or to question certain gaps that need to be covered in order to make a simulation, etc. But I'll not assume that he hasn't critically considered the information presented to him. I'll also not accuse him of not approaching it critically, because whether or not he has, he probably believes he has. So it's a non-starter of a conversation.
mistermann 4y ago
> Everyone, when presented with the idea, "We should be skeptical of even scientific claims", will probably say "Well, no shit, that's how science works". Considering what we went through for the last couple years with Trust The Science (which is very well documented on the internet), it is impressive that so many people still believe this to be true. Psychologically, it seems quite similar to how people often hold allegiance to any ideological organization despite its obvious issues.

ChancyChance 4y ago

If you would call out the inaccuracies and cite why you think they are, that would be far more useful and helpful to the discussion than just complaining and waving vaguely ... "over there" as where the errors lay.

marcosdumay 4y ago

I really liked how non-skeptical he was about his beliefs on the section about war.