
Bill Nye Does Not Speak for Us and He Does Not Speak for Science - artsandsci
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/bill-nye-does-not-speak-for-us-and-he-does-not-speak-for-science/
======
volgo
This is ridiculous. They're claiming that merely associating himself with the
government is a tacit support of Trump's attack on science. Bill is there to
promote NASA's space exploration initiative.

If you withdraw from participating in the government for the mere reason that
it's connected to Trump in general, you're not gonna push any of your agendas
forward.

~~~
pducks32
While I’d agree with you I’d submit that a lot of the science community has
odd feelings about Bill Nye so I can see how that can exacerbate people into
writing things like this. Maybe they wouldn’t normally believe that and would
agree with you but this circumstance changed that. Idk

~~~
toomuchtodo
I don’t care for Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson personally, but science needs
every advocate in these dark times.

~~~
craig1f
A bad advocate undoes the work of a good advocate. Bill Nye doesn't really use
scientific methods. His last show was a mess, because he made assertions he
didn't back up.

Bill Nye has done good work on the past, but he is undoing the work he has
done lately.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Perfect is the enemy of good enough. We have congressional reps who proclaim
there is no global warming because it still snows (while holding up a snowball
on the floor of Congress). Again, every advocate is needed, even if they make
mistakes (as we all do).

------
amha
What's frustrating here is the attitude that if you agree with (or work with)
someone on some particular topic, then you are necessarily endorsing that
person's views on EVERY topic. In other words, you should never associate with
someone unless you agree with 100% of their views.

If we brought this attitude into our personal lives, it would make our
interactions with family members and colleagues impossible! I disagree with
Uncle Bob about X, so therefore it doesn't matter that we have Y in common; I
have to condemn him completely. One of my co-workers has a different attitude
towards business aspect X than me; therefore, we can't work together on
business aspect Y.

Only associating with people whose views are in complete alignment with your
own is a good way to become lonely, angry, and ineffective.

~~~
chris_wot
_Only associating with people whose views are in complete alignment with your
own is a good way to become lonely, angry, and ineffective._

Ironically, it’s exactly what the current White House does.

 _edit:_ I’ve been rate limited (I have no idea why!), but I was going to
reply that I didn’t think this was a good thing.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Ok, so when do we stop with the, "well they do it" arguments and step up? At
some point, someone needs to act like an adult in politics.

------
jhaddow
Bill Nye routinely speaks out about the dangers of climate change. This "guilt
by association" attack is nonsense.

------
ljoshua
I'm sorry, but I don't feel the tone of the letter represents how any
compromise or progress can occur. If you are completely banned from
associating in any way, shape, or form with someone who espouses views
different from you, because of an accusation that by so doing you are tacitly
endorsing those views, puts every single person and issue at an impasse.

If you ever want to affect change, you have to talk to and interact with
people you don't agree with.

There may be other issues at play here, but accusing someone of endorsing all
of the viewpoints of an administration when said person has expressly
disavowed those viewpoints shouldn't be ignored. Bill Nye is trying to move
forward one point (promoting NASA and space exploration), and I don't think
he's in a position to also move forward every other political and social issue
mentioned in the letter.

We can all do better, but I don't think we _do better_ when we attack others.

------
Meerax
If his mere attendance demonstrates approval and acceptance of climate deniers
etc., then every politician in the room that campaigns against these various
platforms is equally in trouble. But this article only singles out one person,
who is by his own admission only there to support NASA.

" Further, from his position of privilege and public popularity, Bill Nye is
acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but without our approval." He
hasn't been voted into any position, he's a private citizen who may go where
he pleases without seeking or needing anyone else's approval. This article is
trolling and seeks only to destroy character.

~~~
timmytwotime
Agreed, nor has he retracted or corrected any previous stance he has ever
taken on climate change simply because he's going.

------
glitchc
I, for one, am thrilled to see Bill Nye support the current U.S. government.
He has always been a strong proponent of climate change as evidenced by
multiple speeches, debates, arguments and written material over the last
decade. This latest move should be seen as a way of promoting growth and
understanding regarding core scientific issues within the new administration.

The authors of this article displays a fair bit of hubris in assuming that
they and their organization speaks for all scientists. It certainly does not
speak for me. As a former scientist (worked in a government lab) who does not
practice science anymore, I find the current model of conducting and reporting
science in the U.S., and in general the western hemisphere, to be
fundamentally flawed. My position is not based on sour grapes persay, as I was
very effective at attracting funding and publishing papers. Rather I've found
that scientists display a high level of self-righteousness in what are moral
topics from a philosophical perspective, yet exhibit by the very same
characteristics that motivate other "lesser" mortals, including politicians,
such as greed (funding), recognition (paper count), and appeal to authority
(reputation of authoring organization/university).

In my humble opinion, scientists have strayed far from their mandate to
understand and discover nature and entered politics for personal, self-serving
reasons. The field of science is suffering as a result.

------
nsxwolf
This is batshit insane. Bill Nye is a darling of leftist pop culture. He is a
vociferous opponent of anything or anyone even a hair to the right of center.

Trump derangement syndrome is so extreme that simply attending the SOTU is all
it takes for Scientific American to completely turn on this guy.

People really need to take a deep breath and take a step back from the ledge.
This is a childish embarrassment.

~~~
mcguire
This is a guest opinion piece, not from the editors of SA.

~~~
nsxwolf
Why print it? Can I get an opinion piece in there?

------
themistocle
This extreme rhetoric only strengthens the right. By condemning Nye for
debating creationists and being a “combative white nerd”, this article reads
like the Onion. Attending this event may be bad idea, but with friends like
these who needs enemies? Who wants to even try and take part in public life?
The moment you stand up you’ll be marked next for the pillory. Do we really
wonder why liberal democracy is collapsing?

------
CivBase
The article starts by highlighting Bill's explicit statement that his presence
“should not be … seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and
the scientific community.”

Then it says to ignore his _explicit_ rejection of the administration's
actions and just accept that his presence is an _implicit_ endorsement.

Then it goes on to assert that Bill Nye's popularity damages the scientific
community's image because he is a nerdy white man. Apparently he also
shouldn't hold public, civil debates with anyone either.

The whole thing reads like a hit piece to me. I haven't heard of the 500 Women
Scientists organization before, but this does not leave me with a good first
impression.

------
ravitation
It's funny, I find that this article clearly provides the counterpoint to its
own argument.

If Bill Nye truly valued his own brand more than he valued scientific progress
would he not have chosen to boycott the SOTU, disassociated himself from this
administration's NASA, and written his own version of this exact article?

I understand that if your agenda is creating a fair immigration process or
marriage equality or improving our public education system then you might
decide that boycotting this administration is the best way to push that
agenda... Since this administration is clearly not serving those interests...
But, if your agenda is scientific progress or increasing mankind's presence in
space then boycotting this administration probably isn't the best way to push
that agenda. If anything, this clearly shows that that, more than the other
things, is what Bill Nye cares about...

------
mattferderer
I think there are two ways of looking at this.

Bill Nye is showing he supports the current policies by appearing at a State
of the Union with Republicans.

Bill Nye is choosing to work with those in power to try to have influence in
the directions they choose to go. Elon Musk often argued this was his
reasoning as well.

I personally think the first opinion is very sad & results in a country that
is torn apart by conflicting ideas. I disagree with the article. We need more
people who are willing to work with those who they strongly disagree with.
Butting heads constantly seems pointless. Agree to disagree & find some common
ground where you can make improvements, even if that means you disagree on
99.9999% of things. Start with the 0.0001% and then try to leverage that into
getting the other side to agree with 1% of your ideas.

~~~
timmytwotime
There is a third option: maybe he's going there to lay his case. And even a
fourth option: maybe he wants to go to learn what the administration has to
say in order to prepare to challenge it.

------
explorigin
Bill Nye is trying to further science by working with NASA. Scientific
American is trying to politicize that act.

~~~
gojomo
Since this is a 'signed editorial', with an identified author other than the
editors or publisher of Scientific American, it's not fully or directly
'Scientific American' that's layering on the political-tribalism. It's common
for publications to include such editorials that have no relation (or are even
_against_ ) the 'house opinion'.

(It's somewhat confused further by the fact authorship is credited to an
activist group named "500 Women Scientists".)

------
TallGuyShort
Scientific American doesn't necessarily speak for us or science either. One of
the few things I don't like about Bill Nye and Neil Tyson is that they talk
about "science" as though there's some single source of truth and ignore the
messy realities of the process that make it hard to reach a perfect consensus.
And then Scientific American does it even worse with some very silly and petty
generalizations and assumptions. I'm not a big fan of Trump either but just
boycotting arbitrary things because they're related to him is just stupid:
it's like complaining about someone because they follow Trump on Twitter.

------
matthewmarkus
Science is not an identity, nor is it an institution. Science is a process.
This article is about as far from science as you can get.

------
chris_wot
_“The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those
of Scientific American.”_

That’s kind of ironic. The author’s claim that Bill Nye claims to speak for
the entire scientific community (really?!?) and yet it seems they imply _they_
speak for the entire scientific community. Under whose authority?

There are so many issues here. Firstly, what do they want? It seems they say
if you are a scientist you can’t advise Trump or his team. Sure, Trump is a
troglodyte and his science congressman is very much anti-science, but you
can’t advise him or attend the U.S. government’s State of the Union?

Secondly, they called him a combatitive and nerdy white guy. Apparently that
means he can’t promote science because by his very existence he promotes an
outdated stereotype of scientists. All-righty then.

Thirdly, they mention him debating Ken Ham. Apparently, _this_ was the sole
reason Ham could make a Creationist museum. What utter hog-wash. Sure, the
museum is an oddity, but America allows and even often rejoices in its
oddballs. That’s because it celebrates diversity - the very thing they are
upset about in the Trump Whitehouse. And it’s not at all apparent to me that
Bill Nye made Ham get enough funds for his museum - sure it may have helped
but Ken Ham would almost certainly have gotten those funds anyway, eventually.
And what was Nye’s alternative? Not debate him? Then Ham could claim that his
argument is so strong that scientists like Ham are afraid of debating him!

This article, frankly, is bullshit. I agree with their concerns over Trump’s
deliberate degradation of science in America. But dragging Bill Nye into this
is absurd, and completely counter-productive.

------
batbomb
It sucks, but some people try to make the best out of a shit sandwich.

I understand if that seems like an untenable view for some with regards to
this administration, but the alternative is often much worse.

For the record, I support Bill Nye's decision to do what Bill Nye thinks is
best, concurrently with a first round voluntary layoffs that will assuredly
affect me within the DOE.

------
craig1f
This is a garbage article. Every time some emotional person writes crap like
this, it converts someone to the alt-right. This is viewed by the right as
evidence that the "left will eventually eat its own".

------
joshuawright11
This is absurd. Maybe the reason Nye has decided to accompany a man whose
views are so different than his own (afaik, Nye himself is not a climate
denier...) is because he believes space exploration and science is more
important than political associations. Putting articles out like this
undermines that and imo shows that the writers are far more interested in
political virtue signalling than actually promoting science and research.

------
Bitcoin_McPonzi
I've subscribed to Scientific American for the past 40 years. I'm dropping it
now.

To claims someone is no longer credible because he accepted an invitation to
hear a President's State of the Union speech is outrageous. You know what no
longer "Speaks for Science?" Scientific American.

------
siglesias
Good to see that nuance is alive and well.

------
chillingeffect
The article states:

> run by someone who votes against their civil rights.

with a link to: [https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/this-is-the-first-
time-...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/this-is-the-first-time-in-
history-the-nasa-administrator-has-been-politically-polarized.html)

but with multiple skimmings I can't find a reference in that article to where
Bridenstine had voted against civil rights. Can anyone help clarify, please?

I do see references to "comments" and "barbs," but not votes:

> past comments deriding the Supreme Court decision to declare same-sex
> marriage constitutional and legal protections for transgender students using
> bathrooms, as well political barbs

------
timmytwotime
Wow how overbearingly stupid.

The author's claim is certainly not the case, as the very first episode of
Bill Nye Saves the World shows. By accompanying "the other side" to the dance
does not mean they will. MAYBE Nye is just going to hear and is perhaps
intellectually curious about the claims to those of which he has challenged
before. It does not mean he tacitly agrees. It does mean that the author has
inferred that through some partisan "not like me" lens. This is terrible.

"Bill Nye does not speak for us or for the members of the scientific community
who have to protect not only the integrity of their research, but also their
basic right to do science."

This is a great example of how ideology eats itself.

------
ravitation
Why was this flagged? Is the politicization of scientific progress not worth
discussing?

------
1337biz
Really sad to see the Scientific American to reach such a low point. The guilt
by 3rd degree association is just shamefull and on par with the tactics of the
Twitter hate mob.

------
gojomo
No. Merely attending the SOTU, or being someone's guest, or talking with
someone, does not imply "tacit endorsement" of their agenda.

~~~
aaroninsf
It does something different and equally pernicious.

There is real impact in lending your image and accrued credibility and
reputation: your social capital.

The associative mind associates; semantics are an afterthought.

Providing for the association is a act with moral consequences, intended or
unwitting.

Nye should know better.

~~~
gojomo
What "moral consequences"? Nye's stances on relevant issues are well-
documented. They're not refuted by merely sitting in a chair next to someone
else.

He's not 'lending' anything to anyone, except in the reaching imagination of
those obsessed with wholly-symbolic rituals of association, distancing, and
shunning.

If this appearance causes some to claim Nye supports Trump's agenda – they'll
quickly be refuted with all Nye's writings and performances otherwise.

If this controversy wins Nye extra media appearances, he'll there again
clearly articulate his own true views for anyone who might have been confused
by the childlike, pre-modern, quasi-religious doctrine that "near contaminates
near with idea cooties".

------
humanrebar
Science is not a religion, a person, or a people group. One does not "attack
science".

------
make3
I agree with most of what is said in the other comments here. While I also
thing that the article is really pushing it, it is true that Bill likely
shouldn't be attending the State of the Union. The article is still likely a
bit of an overreaction

------
mcguire
On one hand, attacking Bill Nye here is rather poor taste (even if his Netflix
show is...bad). On the other hand,

> even introduced legislation to remove Earth sciences from NASA’s scientific
> mission.

This particular sponsor is time deaf.

------
stillbourne
There are members of my family that voted for Trump and I haven't crucified
any of them to a cross. Am I not Liberal enough anymore?

------
debt
I think this is extreme, but I completely agree with it. This makes me an
extremist, but that's okay because we're talking very extreme topics, namely,
climate change.

I don't want Nye to be demonized, but unfortunately if you associate with an
administration that denies climate change, these are the consequences; you'll
be associated with climate change denial.

The takeaway from all of this, is Bill Nye understands these consequences and
made the choice to attend the SOTU.

So be it.

------
RickJWag
Nye is an entertainer, not a scientist.

The author of the paper is blinded by one-sided political views.

The whole thing is a farce.

------
rebuilder
Somehow, this sounds like a weird version of "you're either with us or against
us."

------
1337biz
Also: This shouldn't be flagged. People need to see how ridiculous the whitch
has become.

------
nickpeterson
Bill Nye's reputation won't survive this. I used to love his show as a child,
but I can't tolerate a man who would side with such wicked, deceitful people.

------
neo4sure
I support both the article and Bill. They both have a role to play. But Bill
has to be careful not to get tainted by association. Hope he can walk this
fine line.

------
acmdas
Lest anyone imagine that Scientific American wasn't politicized.

------
debt
I love that this gets flagged because it clearly illustrates the level of
support people on this forum have for the administration; which is scary.

We're talking Trump here; a vociferous enemy of science and fierce climate
change denier. By his own actions and admissions!

Why is it so difficult to understand this scientist's position?

------
delete2
He's intolerant, have they seen his show? This is insanity.

