4 ms·

> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Greene None of those three "cover" any topics. They push their own topics and agenda, which can often be frin

by bmitc 2y ago

> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Greene None of those three "cover" any topics. They push their own topics and agenda, which can often be fringe or counterculture and highly personal pet preferences or topics. Tyson, in particular, just likes to hear himself talk above all else, took 11 years to get his PhD, was kicked out of the UT Austin PhD program, is often wrong, and is a living breathing example of "well, actually". These three are about as far from journalism as you can get and are actively hurtful, at least in the case of Greene and Tyson due to their popularity, to science.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
I don't want to pile on here, because Neil did do some good in popularizing science. He did not really manage to make it cool, but he did become a popular mainstream figure that the public was now allowed to associate with a mental image of a science nerd ( a big step given that previous media iterations were invariably a caricature straight from revenge of the nerds ). The problem.. as it often tends to be in instances such as this.. is that he did become a faux celebrity with all the benefits and drawbacks it brings. Unlike another celebrity in that realm however ( Hawking ), he did not manage to get the same level of recognition.
The_Colonel 2y ago
> Sabine Hossenfelder Check her YT channel - full of clickbait content outside of her expertise. Quite sad actually. https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 Sean Carroll would be a better example, although his reach is limited.
- bmitc 2y ago
  Physicists are in general the worst science "journalists" as they often think they know everything outside of their domain and confidently comment on such. Meanwhile, physics is actually the easiest science in a sense due to its ability to greatly rely on a broad set of simplifying assumptions in both theory and experiment, making them the least qualified for more complex science and systems, generally speaking.

by bmitc 2y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

I don't want to pile on here, because Neil did do some good in popularizing science. He did not really manage to make it cool, but he did become a popular mainstream figure that the public was now allowed to associate with a mental image of a science nerd ( a big step given that previous media iterations were invariably a caricature straight from revenge of the nerds ). The problem.. as it often tends to be in instances such as this.. is that he did become a faux celebrity with all the benefits and drawbacks it brings. Unlike another celebrity in that realm however ( Hawking ), he did not manage to get the same level of recognition.

The_Colonel 2y ago

> Sabine Hossenfelder Check her YT channel - full of clickbait content outside of her expertise. Quite sad actually. https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 Sean Carroll would be a better example, although his reach is limited.

bmitc 2y ago
Physicists are in general the worst science "journalists" as they often think they know everything outside of their domain and confidently comment on such. Meanwhile, physics is actually the easiest science in a sense due to its ability to greatly rely on a broad set of simplifying assumptions in both theory and experiment, making them the least qualified for more complex science and systems, generally speaking.