Back in 2010, the highest Kardashian Index in astronomy probably went to Myleene Klass, a supermodel who decided to do an MSc in astronomy. 0 papers, but even more Google search results than Tyson.
“Has Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?”
Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he’s got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush’s version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It’s just bizarre. To answer Delong’s question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist. – Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
Comment: Remember that Tyson miraculously got into Harvard’s Ph.D. after flunking out of UT-Austin (but still getting a master’s). The Princeton post-doc followed, then the headship of the Hayden.
His daughter got into Harvard because his father was Cyril de Grasse Tyson, a big mahoff in NYC civil rights in the early years (HARYOU, later 100 Black Men). Anybody else who had a son who flunked out of astrophysics at UT would have had to go drive a cab or something.
Sean Davis at The Federalist has written some good pieces on the fraudulence of Tyson fils.
Tyson was indeed a research astronomer for a while, early on in his career. He then diverted into a role promoting astronomy to the public (and ceased doing research himself). That’s not a criticism, such people are valuable.
On the list of items, IAU Circulars (items 9 and 14) are not talks, they are brief alerts. In these cases they announce that a supernova event is occurring, allowing others to observe it. Note that Bulletin of the AAS entries (items 2, 3, 4 etc), are not necessarily conference talks, they could also be conference posters (in astronomy, conference posters/talks tend to have little standing in themselves, which is why most of these entries have no citations). The item 13 is a conference proceedings. Last point, the convention of last place on an author list denoting a senior role isn’t really used in astronomy. Still, he was indeed doing good research early on, with several lead-author papers in leading journals with decent citations to them (items 7, 8, 12, 16).
Here is a link to a YouTube video from someone who tracked down, read and comments on Tyson's PhD Dissertation. Bottom line: real even if he isn't doing research.
Science requires skepticism, lots of it. And skepticism is in short supply today. The culture of "science" is now "go along to get along".
You want a grant? Stick to what is accepted. And that would be great if what was accepted was essentially true. But from the Covid Natural Origin story to the Big Bang, the "truth" is not actually true. In fact, the evidence debunking the established position is overwhelming. You just have to dig for it (not very hard in the case of the James Webb data disproving the predictions from the BB theory).
But our science Divas are nowhere to be found. That is their real crime, choosing their luxurious fame and continued access over their duty to science. Rather than deliver true rigor and skepticism in a manner that the public could appreciate and learn from, the goal of most if not all of these science emissaries is to heap praise and grandstand on the established fakeries and falsities of the day.
Gobekli Tepe and the field of archaeology? Alzheimer's plaque hypothesis research? SSRIs and depression? mRNA Vaccines risk/benefit for toddlers? Inexplicable rise in all cause mortality across all age groups? Hydroxychloroquine benefits in early Covid? The people who could be doing a real service to society and the demos are just too greedy to give a damn. This refusal to follow the actual science is affecting too many fields of study to be anything other than a collapse in the moral fabric of society. Power trumps truth in today's Academia.
There is no James Webb data “disproving the predictions” of the Big Bang theory. Indeed, the Big Bang model has a large amount of solid evidence behind it, and the evidence has got stronger and stronger over the years.
The further back we look (in space-time), Coel, the big bang predicts that galaxies should appear different, more primordial. That is not what we find.
Failures of prediction = Failure of Theory.
The Big Bang theory exists today as a continuously fudged dogma that requires continuous additions of further hypothesis to make it make sense. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are two such "additions".
Coel, science requires skepticism. YOU should be telling the Big Bang people to pack it up unless they can make a series of predictions which we are able to validate. Right? Does the sun orbit the earth or are we actually engaged in science here?
The most distant galaxies do indeed look different from those we see today. What makes you think they don’t? And the Big Bang model has made lots of predictions that have since been verified, with the evidence getting stronger over the years. The spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background is one example.
Has anyone ever written that Latin countries have this pattern: Boys outperform girls and that it probably has something to do with Y chromosome being European?
You might find this amusing:
https://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/000943.shtml
Back in 2010, the highest Kardashian Index in astronomy probably went to Myleene Klass, a supermodel who decided to do an MSc in astronomy. 0 papers, but even more Google search results than Tyson.
Very nice!
Now do the Bogdanoff Brothers lol. (/s RIP)
You might find this interesting:
https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=91127
“Has Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?”
Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he’s got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush’s version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It’s just bizarre. To answer Delong’s question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist. – Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
Comment: Remember that Tyson miraculously got into Harvard’s Ph.D. after flunking out of UT-Austin (but still getting a master’s). The Princeton post-doc followed, then the headship of the Hayden.
His daughter got into Harvard because his father was Cyril de Grasse Tyson, a big mahoff in NYC civil rights in the early years (HARYOU, later 100 Black Men). Anybody else who had a son who flunked out of astrophysics at UT would have had to go drive a cab or something.
Sean Davis at The Federalist has written some good pieces on the fraudulence of Tyson fils.
http://thefederalist.com/tag/neil-degrasse-tyson/
Tyson, the “public face of science.”
http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/02/star-power/
http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683635/a-tale-of-two-icons-when-john-lewis-met-neil-degrasse-tyson-at-comic-con"
Tyson was indeed a research astronomer for a while, early on in his career. He then diverted into a role promoting astronomy to the public (and ceased doing research himself). That’s not a criticism, such people are valuable.
On the list of items, IAU Circulars (items 9 and 14) are not talks, they are brief alerts. In these cases they announce that a supernova event is occurring, allowing others to observe it. Note that Bulletin of the AAS entries (items 2, 3, 4 etc), are not necessarily conference talks, they could also be conference posters (in astronomy, conference posters/talks tend to have little standing in themselves, which is why most of these entries have no citations). The item 13 is a conference proceedings. Last point, the convention of last place on an author list denoting a senior role isn’t really used in astronomy. Still, he was indeed doing good research early on, with several lead-author papers in leading journals with decent citations to them (items 7, 8, 12, 16).
Here is a link to a YouTube video from someone who tracked down, read and comments on Tyson's PhD Dissertation. Bottom line: real even if he isn't doing research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7f4MSSkDp4
Science requires skepticism, lots of it. And skepticism is in short supply today. The culture of "science" is now "go along to get along".
You want a grant? Stick to what is accepted. And that would be great if what was accepted was essentially true. But from the Covid Natural Origin story to the Big Bang, the "truth" is not actually true. In fact, the evidence debunking the established position is overwhelming. You just have to dig for it (not very hard in the case of the James Webb data disproving the predictions from the BB theory).
But our science Divas are nowhere to be found. That is their real crime, choosing their luxurious fame and continued access over their duty to science. Rather than deliver true rigor and skepticism in a manner that the public could appreciate and learn from, the goal of most if not all of these science emissaries is to heap praise and grandstand on the established fakeries and falsities of the day.
Gobekli Tepe and the field of archaeology? Alzheimer's plaque hypothesis research? SSRIs and depression? mRNA Vaccines risk/benefit for toddlers? Inexplicable rise in all cause mortality across all age groups? Hydroxychloroquine benefits in early Covid? The people who could be doing a real service to society and the demos are just too greedy to give a damn. This refusal to follow the actual science is affecting too many fields of study to be anything other than a collapse in the moral fabric of society. Power trumps truth in today's Academia.
There is no James Webb data “disproving the predictions” of the Big Bang theory. Indeed, the Big Bang model has a large amount of solid evidence behind it, and the evidence has got stronger and stronger over the years.
The further back we look (in space-time), Coel, the big bang predicts that galaxies should appear different, more primordial. That is not what we find.
Failures of prediction = Failure of Theory.
The Big Bang theory exists today as a continuously fudged dogma that requires continuous additions of further hypothesis to make it make sense. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are two such "additions".
Coel, science requires skepticism. YOU should be telling the Big Bang people to pack it up unless they can make a series of predictions which we are able to validate. Right? Does the sun orbit the earth or are we actually engaged in science here?
The most distant galaxies do indeed look different from those we see today. What makes you think they don’t? And the Big Bang model has made lots of predictions that have since been verified, with the evidence getting stronger over the years. The spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background is one example.
Wow. Gaslighting. We see pinwheel galaxies in the most distant galaxies we can see. That should not be. Stop lying or declare this as your religion.
Go on then, give an actual link to some actual data or observations that you think supports your claim about distant galaxies.
Lol this is great!
I found a peer-reviewed study that answers your query:
A Comprehensive Review of the "One-Drop Rule".
Forchitte L, Sebastian W, Lu T. Curr Med Sci. 2020 Dec;41(7):1057-1051.
I have a question for you off topic. Why is Argentina's PISA score so abysmal? It is unheard of for a country with white population.
Argentina goes through the effort of having everyone take it (including doing things like tracking down truants), while other countries don't.
It doesn't have a white population.
I think 60-70% of their DNA is from Europe. But Colombia has much better PISA score.
Another observation: Boys outperform Girls in Argentina in a very unusual way. Y-chromosome is mostly European.
Has anyone ever written that Latin countries have this pattern: Boys outperform girls and that it probably has something to do with Y chromosome being European?
I don't think that's a real pattern. In any case, Y chromosome ancestry is not important for intelligence.
https://images.app.goo.gl/eBNmQjhBbo7tRzQB8
He accepts "Greenhouse gas theory". A theory that says water vapor does 3/4s of the the heating.
Which if correct says water vapor alone is enough to do most of the 'job'. On feedback theory grounds alone the GHG Theory is absurd.
Wannabe Tyson