quote:Originally posted by Cartman: 1) Tyson didn't demote Pluto, the IAU did
2) unless you have the mental age of a four-year old you should care more about good science being done (Pluto being reclassified now that we know where the fuck to place it astronomically) than the fact someone attached a different label to it
3) Pluto itself couldn't give a shit, only people who feel some twisted connection between it and a Disney cartoon character (i.e. RETARDED MAN-CHILDREN) do
1) he takes credit (and delight) for it. He's very outspoken about it, actually. I think much f his public persona of an ego maniac is nonsense though- acting that was gets him TV gigs which I suppose pays quite well. Tyson and Michio Kaku seem to be the go-to guys for every science topic lately. 2) As mentioned, the IAU started with an agenda of removing Pluto's planetary status- when you start with a conclusion and shoehorn reasons to support your conclusion, that's not science. 3) You're an imbecile if you think I was referring to the Disney character, or if you assume the planet was named after it. I even threw in a reference to the Underworld and you still leapt to the wrong conclusion. So much for your "maturity", eh? 4)I dont facebook anything, sorry. 5) I thought the movie was very well made, acted and visually amazing. It's nice to see some of the risk of space missions shown on the big screen.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
1) No, he doesn't "take credit for it" (but nevertheless backs up the decision and will basically tell anyone acting butthurt to get over their issues), and videos of him saying as much are all over youtube so search before you put more crap in his mouth or mine.
2) Please prove this conspiratory agenda existed with arguments stronger than bawwwing from some astronomers who weren't included in the vote (not that their votes would have likely even changed the outcome, read this). And as for "when you start with a conclusion and shoehorn reasons to support your conclusion, that's not science", you would be correct except for the small detail that Pluto *still* has more in common with the leftover junk in the outer solar system than with any of the eight inner objects, which we learned only recently by sending probes there (you know, in the name of said science) and was what prompted the whole discussion in the first place.
3) And you're a moron if you think that I either "thought you were referring to the Disney character" or "assumed the planet was named after it", especially after I clarified *exactly* what I meant in my second reply. Here, let me reiterate it for you since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit:
quote:Originally posted by Cartman:
"And please don't tell me you think Pluto is named for the dog."
I do however think all the third-graders and uneducated yokels (but no doubt experts on Greek mythology) who started sending Tyson hatemail after the NYTimes ran its "Pluto not a planet? Only in NY" cover(!)story in 2000 just might have made that connection. And since one typically learns about "the dog" around the same time as "that weird object at the end of the solar system", there is no other reason why most STILL haven't gotten the fuck over its demotion apart from a deeply-rooted mental association between them formed during childhood.
Incidentally this is the same point Tyson always makes.
quote:Originally posted by Neil Tyson:
On the Critique of Science in Film
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
No one was more stunned than I over the media attention given to my flurry of tweets posted this past Sunday, each commenting on some aspect of the Bullock-Clooney film Gravity. Hundreds of references followed in blogs and news sources, including television's Inside Edition the Today Show, and Brian Williams's NBC Nightly News.
What few people recognize is that science experts don't line up to critique Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs or Man of Steel or Transformers or The Avengers. These films offer no premise of portraying a physical reality. Imagine the absurdity of me critiquing the Lion King: "Lions can't talk. And if they could, they wouldn't be speaking English. And Simba would have simply eaten Pumba early in the film."
The converse is also true. If a film happens to portray an awesome bit of science when there's otherwise no premise of scientific accuracy, then I'm first in line to notice. In Chicken Little, for example, the hexagonal sky tiles, each mirroring what lies beneath them, was brilliant. So too are the factory-made doors in Monsters, Inc. As portrayed, they're functional wormholes through the fabric of space-time. In A Bugs Life the surface tension of water, which makes it ball up in small volumes was accurately captured at the Bug Bar, and for the little fella's makeshift telescope.
To "earn" the right to be criticized on a scientific level is a high compliment indeed. So when I saw a headline proclaim, based on my dozen or so tweets, "Astrophysicist says the film Gravity is Riddled with Errors", I came to regret not first tweeting the hundred things the movie got right: 1) the 90 minute orbital time for objects at that altitude; 2) the re-entry trails of disintegrated satellites, hauntingly reminiscent of the Columbia Shuttle tragedy; 3) Clooney's calm-under-stress character (I know dozens of astronauts like that); 4) the stunning images from orbit transitioning from day to twilight to nighttime; 5) the Aurorae (northern lights) visible in the distance over the polar regions; 6) the thinness of Earth's atmosphere relative to Earth's size; 7) the persistent conservation of angular and linear momentum; 8) the starry sky, though a bit trumped up, captured the range and balance of an actual night sky; 9) the speed of oncoming debris, if in fact it were to collide at orbital velocity; 10) the transition from silence to sound between an unpressurized and a pressurized airlock; ... and 100) the brilliantly portrayed tears of Bullock, leaving her eyes, drifting afloat in the capsule.
So I will continue to offer observations of science in film -- not as an expression of distaste or disgust but as a celebration of artists attempting to embrace all the forces of nature that surround us.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
39,000 feet over Arizona
See any "idiotic derisive comments" in there? No? That would be because they don't exist and he never left ones of that nature on Twitter either except in your head.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: 2) Please prove this conspiratory agenda existed with arguments stronger than bawwwing from some astronomers who weren't included in the vote (not that their votes would have likely even changed the outcome, read this).
"the final vote was taken on the last day of the 10-day event, after many participants had left or were preparing to leave. Of over 2,700 astronomers attending the conference, only 424 votes were cast, which is less than 5% of the entire community of astronomers."
As many noted, even those who were interested had to leave due to the delays and such. The original definition proposal as drafted when everyone was present left Pluto a planet.
Put simply, a responsible body not being pushed by a group with an agenda would've shelved it until next time.
"This is considered irrelevant by some, because polling statistics show that sampling 424 members out of a population of 9,000 yields a result with high accuracy (confidence interval better than 5%)."
This is true only when you are polling a representative sample without any bias. In this case, Mike Brown and the gang were able to get their nonsense in at the proverbial last minute and get it passed with those who remained. The fact that so many in the planetary astronomy community disagree is notable.
It would be interesting to see the schedule of events and see if there were any other big planet events in the final days, or if those were all over and so most of the planet folks would've planned to leave.
"There is also the issue of the many astronomers who were unable or who chose not to make the trip to Prague and, thus, cast no vote. Astronomer Marla Geha has clarified that not all members of the Union were needed to vote on the classification issue: only those whose work is directly related to planetary studies."
This argument is fine, except the very problem is that it was left to an open vote of those who remained.
In this era of the internet, the IAU could've easily responded to the controversy with an e-mail vote among the planetary studies folks, which would've at least gotten rid of this part of the controversy if it went their way.
quote:And as for "when you start with a conclusion and shoehorn reasons to support your conclusion, that's not science", you would be correct except for the small detail that Pluto *still* has more in common with the leftover junk in the outer solar system than with any of the eight inner objects, which we learned only recently by sending probes there (you know, in the name of said science) and was what prompted the whole discussion in the first place.
New Horizons hasn't arrived, so you can hardly claim that we suddenly know Pluto's characteristics. It's kind of alarming that you would even suggest that, really.
But in any case, Pluto shares as many or more characteristics with the other eight planets than it does with Mike Brown's objects. Stick Earth out that far and it'll be an ice-ball, too.
Ok, ok, there is no point in crying over spilt milk. Pluto, Ceres etc are dwarf planets, deal with it.
That said, I agree with everything you said there Guardian. I really do think that the evidence suggests the vote was done in an unfair way in order to maximise the chance of it getting through. I think that the IAU (and Mike Brown to some degree) employed gamesmanship when they made this vote and that I question certain aspects of the criteria. But, I wasn't there and so I can't be sure. It just looks that way. Incidentally if any one posting here was there for the vote, or knows anyone that was, I'd love to know.
The definitions of “planet”, “dwarf planet” and “small solar system body” all refer only to the solar system, and with the apparent vast number of exoplanets, I think this may need revising. This will be especially true if it becomes apparent that the only thing unique about our solar system is that the third big rock has us on it.
My major gripe though is this contention that >5% is a big enough quorum for a result that reflects the majority view. 5% of the population can give a result that reflects the will of the total population to P=<0.05? Really!? I’m staggered if that is true, I really am.
I can't find anything that actually shows proof of this, but if it’s true then that’s great. I can't bring myself to vote Tory, Labour or LibDem the next general election, and if a 5% turnout is fine, I can rest easy not voting.
Trouble is I’m not a social scientist, I’m a biologist, so I don’t know which buzz words to choose when looking for this kind of study. I also don’t know any “polling experts” either (what the hell are they anyway? I voted, and I’ve been a presiding officer – am I a polling expert?), so I can’t ask them.
All I really know is that an (apparently) statistically significant subset of the astronomical community got together and decided that a scientifically shaky definition was the best way to go for deciding what is or is not a planet.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged