emiliya · 26-30, F
They all are blowhards. Neil is a celebrity.
emiliya · 26-30, F
@Alyosha “How does his weight have any bearing on his value as a scientist?”
Appearance has bearing on a lot of things. Do you listen to scientists with rainbow hair? What about scientists who look like they are starving? You would be too busy looking at their gaunt face to listen to what they say. Reading the works of a faceless author is better. The best authors are those we never got to see on TV.
Appearance has bearing on a lot of things. Do you listen to scientists with rainbow hair? What about scientists who look like they are starving? You would be too busy looking at their gaunt face to listen to what they say. Reading the works of a faceless author is better. The best authors are those we never got to see on TV.
BohoBabe · M
He's good at teaching science in a way that's understandable to the average person. That's not easy to do.
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
He was an astrophysics researcher. He has authored and co-authored a number of peer reviewed papers. He is no longer an active researcher, but instead focuses upon science communication and education. That's why he does the museum thing. That's why he does podcasts and talk shows. He's communicating about science.
He's popular because he communicates well. He's willing to hold dialogue and peaceful debate with people who disagree with him. He's not a blowhard at all, he's very thoughtful. Does his views threaten some ideological belief you have that you feel a need to attack him?
He's popular because he communicates well. He's willing to hold dialogue and peaceful debate with people who disagree with him. He's not a blowhard at all, he's very thoughtful. Does his views threaten some ideological belief you have that you feel a need to attack him?
Sandcastler · 26-30, M
@ViciDraco I agree with this! Though to be fair he probably owes a lot of his fame to his role in the remake of Cosmos too
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
@TradEmily I'm not sure what you mean by the CV of a failed academic. He's very respected in his field of astrophysics. He's been the science advisor for presidents of both political parties. Before the museum he administrated one of the most famous planetariums in the nation, directly related to his research field. Yes, you didn't hear from him much when he was doing real research. Because his time was spent doing the research. How many scientists do you actually know in the public spotlight to compare him with? He moved into science communication because he had a skill set for it that many researchers and academics do not have. We need more science communicators, not fewer. We've got a real anti-intellectualism problem in this country that needs to be fixed.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
caPnAhab · 26-30, M
How about this for blowhard?
TradEmily · 26-30, F
Ps if this is the panspermia I’ve been hearing about
HoeBag · 51-55, F
I just watched a couple minutes of one of his videos. He sounds boring.
Kind of reminds me of those televangelists or maybe the narrator of a "Get rich flipping real estate" infomercials.
Kind of reminds me of those televangelists or maybe the narrator of a "Get rich flipping real estate" infomercials.
hunkalove · 70-79, M
He seems to think everyone either believes some god created everything or he doesn't exist. Sounds like politics. No possibility there are thousands of gods and they don't create anything.
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M
The longer I live, the morei realize that "celebrity scientist" should be treated as a pejorative. A lot of these scientists in the public eye turn out to have allowed showmanship to compromise their science.
StygianKohlrabi · 46-50, M
I guess because he took over for Carl Sagan. Sagan would make anyone else look more appealing.
Monalisasmith86 · 36-40, F
So what
Monalisasmith86 · 36-40, F
@TradEmily so what why do you care how does it effect your life
TradEmily · 26-30, F
@Monalisasmith86 it's just my opinion.













