Both highly accomplished scientists

We're saying he is overrated because he parrots ideas rather than creating ones like Hawking or Einstein.

>haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae
tyson is not a highly accomplished scientist. he's a highly accomplished POP scientist

his only real work was what was required to get his phd

>implying Veeky Forums hates either of them
/pol/ hates them. Veeky Forums like Dawkins and doesn't care about Neil.

kaku is a nutcase but he actually did science once

tyson has done shit research-wise

But Dawkins is literally a journalist. His biggest contribution to mankind is inventing the meme.

What did he mean by this?

>am sure you have a PhD with hundreds of publications.

I don;t but then I am also not a highly accomplished scientist. To qualify, having a PhD and all those publications is nice, or at least doing some work as a scientist.

He was correct in doing this. These were not fellow physicists; they were most likely womens' studies majors and he probably told them some stupid number like 40k just to see how much he could rip them off.

Their fault they don't understand anything he said and/or are offended by it.

You have a point but he's still a massive scumbag.

>running a planetarium makes you a highly accomplished scientist

>NDT and Dawkins are bad
>loves literal whos and podcasters/youtubers

>running a large lab with tons of people doing research means you're only a narrator

I don't mind Dawkins that much desu. Black Science Man however is not a scientist.

when has Veeky Forums ever loved pop sci
it's been hated for the past 4 years

>Journalists
Both have worked in their field and have done a lot. Dawkins specifically has done a lot for evolutionary Biology.

>Talking shit about things you know nothing about
Never heard of the selfish gene I see.

>popsci
Nice buzzword. Someone who has actually done a lot of stuff in his field but happens to be popular doesn't make him not a scientist.

>he spent about 5 minutes trying to show that logic was stupid but he was citing logical rules and Occam's razor.
Christ

>Their fault they don't understand anything he said
top kek, do you really think he had anything to say that was difficult to understand?

This is just the nature of Veeky Forums. There is no good reason to dislike them and they do appear to be decent scientists. Its a little bit like how everyone here hates the big bang theory. Its not an amazing show, but clearly the only reason for this board to hate it is because people considered normal people like it.

Y-your IQ is just too low...

He could say "Maxwell's equations" without going into any detail whatsoever and they would be lost. I doubt he said anything of value because he knew it would be wasted.

black science man speaks like the most condescending asshat on the planet. Maybe if he didn't sound like such a pretentious cunt than people would take him seriously

>Veeky Forums like Dawkins
No, Dawkins is as big of a hack as black science man and hasn't done anything of note in decades.

>Reinvented how we think of natural selection
>B-But what has he done this month!

>evolutionary biology
>important

kek

>Explains science to the masses.
>Has done nothing for science.

Pick one.

Dawkins is the real deal.

Tyson doesn't have hundreds of publications at all wtf are you lying for.

Dawkins is really really good. Like Sagan tier. People just have their biased-ass agendas. I'm so glad reality is real and no matter how much you pretend shit's gonna work out the way it's supposed to in the long run.

What has Tyson done? I know he runs that planetarium, but what has he done that was actually ground breaking and worthy of praise other than community outreach? Genuinely asking.

I at least know that Dawkins has actually published cutting edge ideas after graduating.

>Both highly accomplished scientists
You mean Dawkin is a real scientist, with lots of publications.
Black Science man despite being a decent science communicator has don't a lot of research in a good while, in contrast to Carl Sagan who could do both.

>popsci
>buzzword
enjoying your first day here?

>enjoying your first day here?
huh?

At least Dawkins understands that shilling for atheism was a big mistake.

It is you brainlet.

They both gave it up decades ago though. They can fuck off.

He beat the shit out of Pluto.
That's a hell of a lot bigger than the excuse of a dick you beat every morning.

Reddit fucking hates Neil Degrasse Tyson though

O RLY?

>Runs a planetarium
>Creator and host of a radio podcast
>Got to do a remake of a great documentary series that was originally made by one of his idols
>Ultimate goal was to be a great science educator
>Has done this
Accomplished more than you probably will

>>Ultimate goal was to be a great science educator
Even scientists who know they are relatively dumb still want to make some great discovery or contribution. Being an educator is great, but come on. Do you think Richard Feynman would trade his forumulation of the path integral for a couple more books and a teaching award?

>PHD in astronomy
>PHD in zoology

Anything worthwhile? No, thats why they are authors and speakers instead of scientists.

Who is supposed to trust them?

Dawkins created this current generation of SJWs and /pol/tards by teaching them in their childhood horrible arguing and reasoning techniques (being so skeptical of your opponent that you already know they're wrong before they say anything so you don't even bother listening to anything they say and name-calling totally works to destroy an argument). Now that they have grown up, they moved on to using these "skills" on political and social issues with disastrous results.

He has single-handedly destroyed western civilization.

I have more publications in the last 10 years than NDT does get fucked faggot

bullshit, only morons who have never listened to Dawkins would actually think this

>everyone who isn't a stem major is a gender studies major
why does /pol/ do this?

Tbh most """scientists""" are just dumn lemmings regurgitating what geniuses discovered. Don't even get me started on the data crunching """"scientists""" who are basically the sci version of code monkey pajeets. If i have to hear about another "great forgotten female scientist" who was really just a glorified calculator im gonna be sick. Fact of the matter is there's a handful of people in every field responsible for the essential shit and everyone else are just peons who might as well not even exist.

memetics is pretty important desu and watch this space, i think it will be used to explain a lot of shit we didn't quite get about society and culture.

sigh

pretty much this. once you look over the militant edgy athiesm (mind you some people like that and arguably its warranted I guess if you are into reactions to a context) - he is the real deal. His books are good and it's not easy to pour your life into highly scientific concepts, come up with new ones, completely changes the way we think about biology and then can explain that to the masses is excellent.

why is he such an edgelord atheist anyway there's nothing about natural selection that removes the possibility of a creator

>completely changes the way we think about biology

This happens every year. Biology is the shakiest of sciences.

They give leftists the idea that science is absolutely in line with their ideology, among giving them a serious case of the Dunning Kruger effect.

because religion gives people retarded ideas and the confidence to run with them despite all evidence to the contrary since "god is on their side"

Because not so long ago being an atheist was viewed as being worse than even a muslim, and people were puritan, evangelical fucks that protested against science. That's really different that someone who show his "intellect" on comment sections by saying "religion is dumb dumb science XD". The problem is that he still knows little about philosophy, history and religion.

This didn't happen except in the minds of atheists, at least not on the scale they claimed.

>muh victim narrative

Yes, yes, and atheists never did nuffin.

>The problem is that he still knows little about philosophy, history and religion

Or he just don't like being dragged to church.

Kek are you seriously this retarded or just pretending?

Tysons h-index is 6. An h-index of 20 over 20 years is usually the bare minimum for being considered an successful scientist.

Atheists commit less crime than christcucks.

>Legitimately not understanding that our drive to discover is synonymous with our drive to educate humanity as a whole.

Feynman was passionate about his lectures and helping others understand the universe. Every great scientist that I've met has shared this passion. If they don't, it's not for lack of want. It's for lack of ability.

>Edgelord
He isn't edgy at all. Him pissing you off doesn't make him edgy.

There are fewer atheists.

He became an edgelord when he said the pope should be arrested for the whole child molestation incident when he himself seems okay with mild pedophilia.

Dawkings, like most of the so called new atheists, isn't even really an atheist. He's anti-religious and anti-theist but, this is key to the whole atheism thing, he's not strictly anti-deist. See:
>"Dawkins debated Lennox for the second time at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History in October 2008. The debate was titled "Has Science Buried God?", in which Dawkins said that, although he would not accept it, a reasonably respectable case could be made for "a deistic god, a sort of god of the physicist, a god of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen" but not for a theistic god"
Here Dawkins outs himself as an heavily atheistically leaning agnostic since atheism is an absolutist position. You can't entertain or give any possibilty for god, or you're not an atheist. Which is good, it's a more intelectually honest position that being an atheist. But of course new atheists dance around this with semantics and redefining of words but it's really not that relevant in the end. Dawkins isn't entirely against the actual concept of god, he's just anti-religious.

>It's edgy to say that someone who was believed to be hiding pedophile activities should be arrested for hiding pedophile activites
Also even when taking that there are less atheists they still take up a very small minority.

That isn't what atheist means at all faglord. Atheist literally means you don't believe in god but that doesn't mean you have to be 100%. I don't believe in bigfoot but I admit there is a .001% chance that he is real.

See:
>But of course new atheists dance around this with semantics and redefining of words but it's really not that relevant in the end. Dawkins isn't entirely against the actual concept of god, he's just anti-religious. The "canon" of early modern western atheism is that it is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. It is absolute. There is no wiggleroom. Just like in deism, there is no wiggleroom. A deistic god exists. The root for the word atheism in the modern philosophical sense is not the Greek one but the French one which is "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods".

Modern Atheists, 21 and 20th century ones, started to rebrand atheism to be more mild however. They started to prefer the greek origin word "godless" and changed the definition of atheism to "a lack of belief" instead of a more aggressive position. But as I stated it's irrelevant. Modern atheism isn't really atheism. Its agnosticism that leans towards atheism.

You can't say that without actually defining "old" atheism. I highly doubt atheism means you literally don't think there is even a .00000001 chance of a god.

Sorry I fucked up the greentext in my post:
The "canon" of early modern western atheism is that it is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. It is absolute. There is no wiggle room. Just like in deism, there is no wiggle room. The root for the word atheism in the modern philosophical sense is not the Greek one but the French one which is "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods".

shouldn't be in greentext.

>Denies the existence
You know this doesn't mean 100% right? I deny the existence of aliens visiting us through UFOs but could be swayed with evidence.

Literally nothing on your list makes a person a scientist. Plus he's obnoxious in interviews, throws around stupid pop culture references, and some of his tweets are downright retarded.

They are objectivley over rated, but that doesn't mean that they aren't good guys and that they don't do good work and it certiantly doesn't mean that the things they've done in the past are invalid.

Edit: no way
edit edit: woah shout out
editeditedit: Thanks for validating my existence by giving pity for my pathetic story

Honestly, I don't know what they expected. 40-50k is framed to be an exorbitant amount of money which gives the impression that they felt ripped off before they even paid. "This doesn't seem worth it. Let's do it"

If he shows up and finds out that hardly any of the people study a field relevant to the purpose of the visit it probably gives the impression that this is a fan gathering so I'm not surprised that the lecture was fluff. This doesn't excuse the rude behavior, but I imagine the tone of the entire visit was poor. Every university guest lecture I have seen that wasn't focused on work done by the presenter in a specific field of science has been nonsense. If someone else paid 40-50k to have tyson come to my university, I wouldn't go.

>Reddit likes them
Jesus christ Veeky Forums is so out of touch

What the hell are you talking about? /pol/ has rotten your brain.
It wasn't a literal witch hunt, but you would get shat pretty badly in some places for being an atheist. Not trying to gain sympathy, but showing it kinda made sense as part of the counter culture. Again I've never claimed that I meet eye to eye with dawking, or that I respect him as a philosopher/historian, but it was a lot more ballzy and controversial when he did it. Ffs, everyone startes shit flinging because of Dan Browns shitty fanfics, it literally was a different time.

>>Reinvented how we think of natural selection
christ do people really think the selfish gene is 100% his work and not exposition of existing ideas to a general audience

>Out of touch
Sorry not everyone is in the know about reddit.
So do they hate them? Why?

you know who else has PhD with publications?

Dawkins made contributions to evolutionary biology, like the concept of extended phenotype.
Neil is just apefirmative action.

That's Veeky Forums in general, mate. Contrarian to the point of absurdity.

dawkins doesn't even understand evolution
look it up
the last decade they've been scrambling to update and remove the history of evolution as they've been getting it wrong
the moron still gets it wrong
it's almost as if they were PAID to get it wrong... think about it
NDG is just a fucking meme
he's annoying as fuck
doesn't push the envelope
at least he treats our intellect in an socratic way instead of the vain faggotry that dawkins does
and peterson
peterson romanticizes consciousness and shit
it's pathetic
but - at the same time, he's more of a realist than all
it's like he wants to keep his background in play by sometimes romanticizing it