He is /ourguy/. Right?

He is /ourguy/. Right?

Gets lots of undeserved hate, at least he isnt singing about his junk on tv.

>Gets lots of undeserved hate
Maybe from faggots from leddit or here. But universally the whole world sucks his dick.

Someone already said it best: he's a science enthusiast, not a scientist

Bought and paid for by the government. Scientific propaganda spreader.

>when NDT tells you atomic clocks use atoms

>he's a science enthusiast, not a scientist
He has a doctorate degree and has various published papers. Unless you also have those things then his tip of his BBC is more of a scientist than you.

He is the only scientist that doesn't sound like an alien talking to normal people when they want to learn something about science.

>He has a doctorate degree and has various published papers.

As if that means anything. He's a mouthpiece for government science. The money's better.

That's absolutely retarded, since he actually is a scientist. He has the credentials to prove it. A better term would be pop culture scientist or something along similar lines.

He used to be cool, I liked his talks.
Now he just appeals to simpletons who think they're geniuses because they can memorize metabolic pathways for their high school science tests.

he's a pompous asshole.

It means he is more of a scientist than you.

Oh does it now? Tyson simply spouts other people's scientific theories as if they were fact. He's the very opposite of a scientist. Scientists should never be completely sure a theory is correct, real scientists are constantly trying to disprove current theories.

He's a hack worse than Dawkins.

>real scientists are constantly trying to disprove current theories.
This is true but not in the way you think. If no one believed any theory to be true then science would never progress.

G. Has this poster done any real science?
A. Not since... oh wait. No, never.

>popperian bullshit

Stop listening to a philosopher who never took a class in science to learn what science is about.

All theories are false. Some are useful.

>All theories are false. Some are useful.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said but dumbed down to Donald Trump tier language.

So you can see that when Tyson endorses a scientific theory he is not really trying to sell you a religion, he is trying to convince you that the theory is useful. So why do you have a problem with him?

>Stop listening to a philosopher who never took a class in science to learn what science is about.

Science is half philosophy, the scientific method is born from philosophy.

>he is not really trying to sell you a religion, he is trying to convince you that the theory is useful.

Convincing someone a theory is true - how is that any different to how religion operates?

>Convincing someone a theory is true
But no theory is true. He is just trying to convince you a theory is useful.

What's the difference between useful and truthful? Isn't a more truthful theory more useful? Isn't a less truthful theory less useful?

>Stop listening to a philosopher who never took a class in science to learn what science is about.
This is stupid. Back then every mathematician was a great physicist and vice-versa, the same went for philosophers. Academic fields weren't nearly as isolated and specialized as they were nowadays.