Academia, Congress, Politics, Religion, Science

Neil deGrasse Tyson on The Importance of Science Literacy

NeildeGrasseTyson - CopySubmitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor

Last week, I wrote a post titled “Cosmos” Host Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks Out about the News Media, Flat Earthers, Science Deniers, Climate Change Skeptics, Religion, and Dogma. Tyson—an astrophysicist, director of the Natural History Museum’s Hayden Planetarium in New York City, and the host of Fox Networks’ new science series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey—appeared on a multi-part series on Moyers and Company in January. Tyson and Bill Moyers explored a variety of topics—including the nature of an expanding, accelerating universe (and how it might end), the difference between “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the concept of God in cosmology and why science matters.

In the final episode of the series—which I’ve posted below the fold—the two men discuss science literacy and why it’s so critical to the future of our democracy, our economy, and our country’s standing in the world. Their discussion lasts about twenty minutes.

 

“Science is an enterprise that should be cherished as an activity of the free human mind. Because it transforms who we are, how we live, and it gives us an understanding of our place in the universe.”

~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

********************

~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

215 thoughts on “Neil deGrasse Tyson on The Importance of Science Literacy”

  2. dm2,

    “Like a lot of the counters of the talk origin archives and anti-creationist educational sites, they blow just enough smoke to fool the uneducated.”

    Don’t take it personal.

    But yeah, all those anti-creationist sites out there should be shut down for the smoke they blow. Those uneducated fools — what to do?

  4. gbk:

    Read it but dont know enough about geology. Can understand some of the concepts but not enough to know if it is correct.

  5. dm2,

    From my comment @ 9:17:

    “Can you cite specific examples of how, “they have read him [Gentry],” and how “they” are ignoring information?”

    Should be:

    “Can you cite specific examples of how, “they have NOT read him [Gentry],” and how “they” are ignoring information?”

    It seems they have “read him” and they are refuting his findings.

    1. gbk wrote: ““Can you cite specific examples of how, “they have NOT read him [Gentry],” and how “they” are ignoring information?””

      You already pointed it out yourself earlier. Maybe you were being sarcastic and I mistakenly thought you understood something that you do not understand.

      Consider this quote: “If polonium halos truly had a nearly instantaneous origin as suggested by Gentry (1988), then even more examples of other polonium halo types would be expected to occur, such as (1) halos of 215Po and 211Po that are derived from radon gas 219Rn in the radioactive uranium (235U) decay series or (2) halos of 216Po and 212Po that are derived from radon gas 220Rn in the radioactive thorium (232Th) decay series. But they are not found (Collins 1997b).” Clearly the Collins’ here are not following the argument of Gentry at all. They rely only upon their ingrained notion that only the Uranium decay series could be the source of the polonium halos. At first, Gentry accepted these types of explanations, but he began to wonder about why the radiation was extinct, and how 218Po halos could appear in isolation without the other isotopes. It was exactly these observations that led Gentry to conduct further studies which he later published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Following is the section of the book that basically repeats these principles and outlines how these observations led Gentry along a path of research to test the issues raised:

      http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-02-b.htm

      In any case, my reason for raising Gentry’s work was not to get into a debate here about Polonium halos. This is clearly not an appropriate forum for this type of discussion. Rather, my point was that work by creationists like Gentry is indeed science. How could scientists either find agreement or disagreement, or do any kind of empirical analysis if the subject matter is not science?

      This is the problem all the time with this subject. If a debate is inconclusive, it is because the opposition is making a religious argument, so give science more time and they will eventually be able to find an explanation. If a debate does conclusively falsify a creationist notion through empirical means, then the mantra is see, creationist views are wrong. Well, if empiricism can falsify a tenet of a creationist theory, then clearly that theory was subject to empirical falsification and was therefore scientific to begin with. The bottomline is that creationist arguments like the ones Gentry made are not like arguing for Bugs Bunny or how Mothra created the earth. Gentry’s arguments are based upon empirical observation, the formulation of hypotheses based upon such observations, the testing of those hypotheses to eliminate the ones that lack explanatory power, and finally the formation of an overall theory to explain the empirical data. For a scientist or judge in court to come along and proclaim such not to be science is an insult to the scientific method handed down to us since the days of Francis Bacon.

  7. Byron,

    This one is for you.

    The socialist granite demanded more from the capitalist uranium decay than polonium could offer — and that’s why we have pebbles on the beach.

  8. Ahh, Byron,

    I was wondering when you would show up.

    “Isnt radioactive decay pretty well understood?”

    What really is your question, Byron?

  9. dm2,

    “This article is dishonest when it says, “These creationists ignore the fact that uranium in the original magma would be continuously supplying polonium isotopes during the 5 million years of cooling.” The entire research of Gentry centered on this question of testing for secondary intrusion. He even studied rocks that had secondary intrusion of polonium to compare with the mica of the granites. When someone says Gentry ignores this idea, it is clear that they have not read him and that they are the ones who are ignoring information.”

    Can you cite specific examples of how, “they have read him [Gentry],” and how “they” are ignoring information?

  10. gbk:

    arent you a scientist?

    Isnt radioactive decay pretty well understood?

  12. dm2,

    Oh, I see — it was an “online” debate. You mean much like your “debates” here.

    Never mind, I thought you meant a real debate.

  13. dm2,

    “Yup, and I’ve debated online with Wakefield and others years ago in the past. Wakefield is a firefighter / amateur geologist who believes textbook stuff and can’t get his head outside the box when someone proposes something outside the textbook paradigm.”

    Boxes come in all sizes. Can you cite a time, location, and venue of this debate?

  15. dm2,

    Oh, you mean this:

    “The problem is not the disappearance of polonium through 5 million years, as Gentry and Snelling suggest, but the inability of polonium ions produced during this time to migrate from scattered uranium atoms in very viscous magma to precipitate as polonium atoms in a localized place in a growing biotite crystal lattice so that polonium halos can form.”

    Or this:

    “There are two possible mechanisms to make this concentration happen. The first is by the formation of either vein-dikes or pegmatites containing uranium minerals that are associated with chemical replacement processes (metasomatism). The second is by the formation of pegmatites containing uranium minerals that result from magmatic processes.”

    Or this:

    “Polonium ions nucleate in biotite and fluorite because these ions are large and can fit only in large sized holes in a mineral lattice. Such holes occur in biotite and fluorite but not in the other kinds of minerals commonly found in granite. The polonium ions nucleating on the faces of growing biotite crystals and fluorite subsequently became enclosed inside these crystals. The enclosed polonium ions would then begin to decay and emit alpha particles. The alpha particles, shot out in random patterns, would cause damage to the crystal lattice producing spheres with different radii, destroying the lattice structure and producing a disordered pattern, known as a glass, which appears as a black circular spot under the petrographic microscope.”

    Your knowledge of everything is truly humbling. Your obviously blessed.

  16. dm2,

    “. . . the study of polonium halos in granites…”

    From:

    Reports of the National Center for Science Education
    Volume 30, Issue 5. 2010
    “Origin of Polonium Halos”
    Lorence G Collins & Barbara J Collins

    “It has been more than twelve years since we (Collins 1988, 1997b; Hunt and others 1992) discussed Robert Gentry’s hypothesis proposing that polonium (Po) halos and granite were created nearly instantaneously on Day Three of the Genesis Week (Gen 1:9–10; Gentry 1965, 1970, 1974, 1983, 1988). It is worth examining new information pertinent to the origin of polonium halos.”
    . . .

    “Polonium halos occur in biotite in granites of supposed magmatic origin, and the half-lives of the polonium (Po) isotopes are short (218Po, 3.05 minutes; 214Po, microseconds; and 210Po, 140 days). Gentry claims, therefore, that no matter how much original polonium may have been present in the granite magma, all would have decayed to stable lead (206Pb) in 5 million years, long before the biotite in which polonium halos are found could have formed. He asserts on that basis that polonium halos can be used to support the literal interpretation of the Bible that granite in the earth was created during Day Three of the Genesis Week and not over a period of ~4.6 billion years (Dalrymple 1991). This rapid formation of granite during Day Three and supposed disappearance of polonium isotopes during 5 million years are ideas that are also promoted by Snelling (2008a, 2008b).”
    . . .

    “Gentry and Snelling’s claims are without validity (Collins 2008). These creationists ignore the fact that uranium in the original magma would be continuously supplying polonium isotopes during the 5 million years of cooling.”
    . . .

    “The rapid rates at which crystals can grow in calcite vein-dikes or pegmatites in the presence of steam and the rapid rates at which radioactive isotopes can diffuse from areas of relatively high pressures into possible large open fractures are important factors in the formation of polonium halos.”
    . . .

    “If polonium halos truly had a nearly instantaneous origin as suggested by Gentry (1988), then even more examples of other polonium halo types would be expected to occur, such as (1) halos of 215Po and 211Po that are derived from radon gas 219Rn in the radioactive uranium (235U) decay series or (2) halos of 216Po and 212Po that are derived from radon gas 220Rn in the radioactive thorium (232Th) decay series. But they are not found (Collins 1997b). The reason is that the radon gas atoms (219Rn and 220Rn) in these two decay series which are the precursors for the other radioactive polonium isotopes have half-lives in seconds, and their daughter polonium isotopes have half-lives in seconds and microseconds instead of 3.05 minutes for 218Po and 140 days for 210Po in the 238U decay series (Collins 1997b). However, Gentry found only one kind of Po-halo sequences among three possible kinds in biotite and fluorite of supposed instantaneous origin.”

    http://ncse.com/rncse/30/5/origin-polonium-halos

    Additionally, Richard Wakefield (ring a bell, dm2) has presented argument of Gentry’s sloppy fieldwork and misunderstanding of basic geologic structures such as intrusive/extrusive and the differences between rhyolite and granite since at least 1997.

    I’m sure you know of this.

    1. gbk wrote: “I’m sure you know of this.”

      Yup, and I’ve debated online with Wakefield and others years ago in the past. Wakefield is a firefighter / amateur geologist who believes textbook stuff and can’t get his head outside the box when someone proposes something outside the textbook paradigm. I’ve even exchanged samples of mica with polonium halos. This article is dishonest when it says, “These creationists ignore the fact that uranium in the original magma would be continuously supplying polonium isotopes during the 5 million years of cooling.” The entire research of Gentry centered on this question of testing for secondary intrusion. He even studied rocks that had secondary intrusion of polonium to compare with the mica of the granites. When someone says Gentry ignores this idea, it is clear that they have not read him and that they are the ones who are ignoring information. Like a lot of the counters of the talk origin archives and anti-creationist educational sites, they blow just enough smoke to fool the uneducated.

  17. David,
    I never said archeology was not science. It is science. So is paleontology and anthropology. Apparently you misread what I wrote. The Bible describes people, places and things. It also describes some events. As an historical record, biblical accounts of actual historical events can be physically checked. Archeologists believe they may have found the remains of the villages of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. That there were certain kings and rulers is a record that can be independently verified.

    What is in dispute is interpretations of biblical verses and commentary. For example, trying to interpolate the length of time humans were here, based on an oral genealogy and counting generations. For an oral genealogy to even begin, there must be a culture and a language. Otherwise, how could an oral history even begin? Culture and language did not appear overnight. It evolved. In fact, culture and languages are still evolving. Here is a simple example: One of the reasons the MMPI was revised and became the MMPI-2 was due to changes in word meanings and understanding between 1942, when the test was first published and 1984 when it was necessary to revise it. Test takers were being asked questions using language that was commonplace in 1942, but antiquated and out of use by the early 1980s.

    The bible recorded events, but due to lack of scientific understanding, many of them were probably misinterpreted, and are still being misinterpreted, by the concrete-minded who cannot comprehend parables, analogies and metaphors.

  18. http://thelucascritique.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/sir-francis-bacons-refutation-of-atheism-and-the-necessity-of-one-true-faith/

    Along with developing the scientific method, he also wrote tracts about religion. In an age where an increasing number of people in the Western World are regarding themselves as “atheist”, “agnostic” or even “I don’t know”, Sir Francis Bacon’s essay Of Atheism is extremely relevant. This relevance is bolstered by the fact that his life counters the claim by many atheistic apologists that religious people are “irrational”, “dim-witted” and incapable of understanding science; here we have the very man who developed the scientific method and was an extremely devout Christian.

    Sir Francis Bacon is counted as one of the most influential figures in scientific history, and his essay Of Atheism is useful reading for all those in the “atheist”, “agnostic” and “I don’t know” category looking to challenge their beliefs.

Comments are closed.