

Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA - pbj
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/mateq/i_am_neil_degrasse_tyson_ama/

======
feralchimp
So, so many excellent quotes in that discussion. My favorite:

"Kids are never the problem. They are born scientists. The problem is always
the adults. The beat the curiosity out of the kids. They out-number kids. They
vote. They wield resources. That's why my public focus is primarily adults."

Preach it, dude.

~~~
Waxbar1
Interestingly, South Park has been conveying this message message for over 10
years, and I think the generation that grew up watching South Park innately
understands this already and at a younger age.

------
jphackworth
Really interesting. A couple of physics things I did not know that Neil
mentions:

 _1) The fact that an electron has no known size -- it's smaller than the
smallest measurement we have ever made of anything._

 _2) That Quarks come only in pairs: If you try to separate two of them, the
energy you sink into the system to accomplish this feat is exactly the energy
to spontaneously create two more quarks - one to partner with each of those
you pulled apart._

~~~
tkahn6
See also:

Q: Since time slows relative to the speed of light, does this mean that
photons are essentially not moving through time at all?

A: yes. Precisely. Which means ----- are you seated? Photons have no ticking
time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the
instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe
itself.

~~~
Jach
This answer bothered me. Is he just saying that any supposed delays of "light"
we can set up through experiment are really just delays in instantaneous
absorption/emission pairs, or is he talking about entangled photons, or some
preferred space of simultaneity, or photons not being particles but vectors in
a timeless configuration space?

~~~
teamonkey
I loved this reply. Clarifying and correct, as far as I can tell.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/mateq/i_am_neil_degras...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/mateq/i_am_neil_degrasse_tyson_ama/c2zga4o)

------
jrappleye
My personal favorite:

 _Q: If you could add one course to a student's curriculum, what would it
be?"_

 _A: Course title every university should offer: "How to tell when someone
else is full of shit"_

------
suprgeek
Q:What is your favorite fact about the Universe?

A:That is will never end. That it's on a one way trip of expansion. Something
that many find to be philosophically unsettling. My view is that _if your
philosophy is not unsettled daily then you are blind to all the universe has
to offer._

Priceless

~~~
anjc
That's nice and all, but most humans in the world (including the western
world) don't have the luxury of being able to let themselves be unsettled
daily :/

~~~
wpietri
Most of them could have this luxury. They pick other luxuries first.

Which is, in my view, a mistake. Those who seek out challenge tend to end up
with a lot more luxury than those who don't.

~~~
anjc
This is probably a privileged viewpoint which is only possible in certain
cases, i'm guessing (i'm not saying that you or me are privileged,
necessarily...just that it's still a 'luxury' to some extent)

------
malkia
He is one of my heroes. So charming, funny and educating at the same time. His
speech on the islam downfall in the 13th century due to some "prophet"
claiming that math and devil were interconnected was much enlightening on how
religion actually stops scientific progress.

~~~
omarchowdhury
Does that one instance preclude all of the other people that contributed to
science, who also had faith?

~~~
bluedanieru
It would help if their faith is what _drove_ them to pursue scientific
endeavors. And that is sometimes the case, in fact. But for every "understand
the mind of god" faith-driven scientist there are at least one thousand
screaming, irrational, dangerously unbalanced regressives who are one papal
bull or fatwa or Dianetics away from ushering us into a brutal and stupid dark
age. Like many human inventions religion can be a great thing, but it often
isn't.

~~~
sskates
Not disagreeing/agreeing, but do you have any evidence to back up the claim
"for every "understand the mind of god" faith-driven scientist there are at
least one thousand screaming, irrational, dangerously unbalanced regressives"?

~~~
bluedanieru
No, sorry. This isn't Wikipedia.

~~~
skeletonjelly
Exactly. Just because I declare something doesn't mean I have to back it up
with facts. I trust my gut. That's where the truth lies.

~~~
bluedanieru
Not every turn of phrase entitles you to a link, you literal-minded buffoon.

~~~
skeletonjelly
Great! Hostility. A welcome addition to a discourse. What you said wasn't a
turn of phrase. You stated it as a fact.

------
akkartik
So he's skeptical of the singularity but he thinks we'll be able to live
forever in a lifetime or so. Weird.

~~~
cbo
They're two very different ideas, even if they're often shared by the same
people.

The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence. On this front,
I can tell you after having studied a lot of AI for the past three years, we
are not close. We're a lot further than many people think, but still not quite
_that_ far.

As for extending lifespans, this is something we've been doing from the dawn
of medicine. We've been making significant strides here for thousands of
years, and as Aubrey DeGray puts it, we've become very efficient mechanics on
the car that is the human body, and we're only getting better at it. There's a
lot of research being done on slowing the aging process and beating genetic
disorders, which are two of the largest barriers to extremely long lifespans
for humans.

~~~
md224
Has anyone considered the idea that perhaps this "AI" has already arrived in
the form of the collective intelligence of the Internet? That perhaps the
"Singularity" is simply a shift of scope in terms of consciousness from the
individual to the group? Much like multicellular organisms evolving from
single-celled creatures?

I just think this makes a lot more sense than the whole "we will build a
conscious robot" thing, especially since many of the innovations that are used
as evidence of an approaching singularity have helped human beings become ever
more tightly interconnected.

~~~
sskates
This isn't quite the feedback loop that the AI singularity folks talk about,
but the Internet is one heck of a positive feedback loop, much much tighter
than technological progress feedback loop before it. Makes me excited for
where we'll be 5, 10, 20 years from now as the rate of acceleration speeds up.

------
davidhollander
Anyone interested in NdGT, check out the show he hosts: Nova Science Now

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/>

You can watch full episodes online, no commercial interruptions after they
start. It does a good job at filling the popular science video niche, in
addition to Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.

~~~
lobster_johnson
I have been looking for a good science show, but _Nova scienceNOW_ wasn't it.
Not so much the content as the absolutely juvenline format.

Can someone explain how I have misunderstood and the show really is meant for
kids? Because it's designed like a kid's show, complete with silly music,
wacky editing, colourful demonstrations/analogies to illustrate scientific
principles, and narration that sounds as if written for a toddler. In this
respect it's almost as unwatchable as Michio Kaku's (who's ordinarily a bright
guy) weirdly infantile _Science of the Impossible_ series. (It's also an
incredibly _American_ show, formatwise, extremely brash and loud and fluffy.)
I started watching the show as I'm a fan of Tyson, but I ended up
disappointed.

For now, the only regular series (as opposed to one-offs like Jim Al-Khalili's
excellent shows on atoms and chemistry, or Sagan's _Cosmos_ ) I consider worth
watching is BBC's _Bang Goes the Theory_
(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lwxj1>), which is fairly obviously
targeted at teens, but has some good content. Two of the hosts are fairly
annoying generic twentysomethings who do the show as though it's some kind of
music video programme, but the third guy is an adorable geek with an obvious
passion for science and engineering, and they have some assisting hosts who
are quite quirky.

~~~
th0ma5
I can't agree with you more, on one hand the technical detail is somewhat
increasing in American shows, but the over production and gimmicky nature
certainly overshadows it. I'm always impressed by the technical level of BBC
shows in comparison, but the best content is online, usually in lectures, and
not TED.

~~~
lobster_johnson
They probably think they need the flashy production style to attract
mainstream viewers, and in the US, perhaps that's true.

But I was similarly annoyed with Brian Cox's _Wonders of the Solar System_ ,
which is beautifully designed and calmly edited, but comes across as really
fluffy thanks to the lack of scientific detail and the gushing, ultrapositive
personality of Cox, who describes everything as "brilliant" and
"mindboggling". I like Cox, but he's a bit over the top.

I've found myself hunting down online content such as TED, and also Nottingham
University's work, such as the periodic table of elements series
(<http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos>).

------
omnivore
"pedagogical enthusiasm" - my new favorite term.

