1. Comment #19995 by toaldingham on January 31, 2007 at 3:15 am

Carry the two!

Other Comments by toaldingham

2. Comment #19997 by magetoo on January 31, 2007 at 3:19 am

Ah, nice. I'm in the process of catching up on my Daily Show, so this is something to look forward to. 30th of January, it seems.

Other Comments by magetoo

3. Comment #20017 by Sumguyhavingfun on January 31, 2007 at 4:59 am

Neil is awesome. He is so enthusiastic about what he does. And he can talk about it in an entertaining and informative way.

Other Comments by Sumguyhavingfun

4. Comment #20039 by mdowe on January 31, 2007 at 6:10 am

There is a wonderful interview with Dr. Tyson for last week's Point of Inquiry podcast:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

Check it out!

Other Comments by mdowe

5. Comment #20083 by BathTub on January 31, 2007 at 9:27 am

That was really great.

Other Comments by BathTub

6. Comment #20125 by Jared on January 31, 2007 at 2:19 pm

OK. I may not be the first to say it, but I don't care. deGrasse Tyson for President '08! :-P

I know, I know, he'd never take the job... but it doesn't hurt to dream, does it?

Other Comments by Jared

7. Comment #20128 by Zaphod on January 31, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Tyson is so excited about science. Love it :-D.

Other Comments by Zaphod

8. Comment #20139 by mjwemdee on January 31, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Great fun. I just wish these sort of interviews on American channels weren't always so brief. I'm interested... is there anywhere on US public TV networks that enlightened programmes can be found?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

9. Comment #20150 by melisande on January 31, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Who doesn't love Neil Degrasse Tyson?

He is so awesome. I love the Daily Show but sometimes I wish some of the guests had a bit more time...They let Bill Gates talk about Vista forever on the last show, and who cares about that? He didn't even talk about malaria or something.

Anyway, yay. Go Neil!

Other Comments by melisande

10. Comment #20151 by jefferson on January 31, 2007 at 3:45 pm

That was a fun interview. I too was dissappointed that it was so short, but I watch the Daily Show... well... daily, so I know the interviews are generally brief. Sometimes when really famous people like Bill Gates comes on, they give them more time.

Other Comments by jefferson

11. Comment #20164 by a tree with roots on January 31, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Those are two of my favourite people. It was short, but it's sure better than nothing! Funny AND fascinating.

Other Comments by a tree with roots

12. Comment #20177 by Yorker on January 31, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Been a while since I posted here and this one isn't going to increase my popularity rating, but I have to say nonetheless, that there's something about Neil that I find off-putting. His performances on the Beyond Belief conference gave me some insight into his character and it was there that my negative feelings about him started. I'm not sure exactly what it is; perhaps it has to do with his apparently liking himself a little too much, not that I have a problem with that per se; I could easily put up with a little scientific egoism if Neil was a scientist of some stature but as far as I know, he hasn't made any significant contributions yet. His book on Black Holes will have to be outstanding to compete with the many great books already available on this popular subject.

So, I will follow his career more closely and maybe even read his book if it gets some good reviews from critics I respect. Perhaps he will do something that will make me change my mind; I hope so, because I share his general scientific enthusiasm.

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #20180 by nine9s on January 31, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I'm interested... is there anywhere on US public TV networks that enlightened programmes can be found?

Sigh. I really do get tired of all the America-bashing that goes on around here. But to answer your question, some really good channels are the Discovery Channel and its offshoots (Discovery Health, the Science Channel, Discovery Times, Animal Planet [which hosted Crocodile Hunter], The Learning Channel), along with the History Channel, History International, C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3, and some of the news networks. Comedy Central is only good for South Park and the occasional Jon Stewart interview.

By the way, the BBC America channel is probably the trashiest channel on American TV. I wish I were exaggerating. Every show I've seen on it makes every character a scheming, bitchy, amoral bastard. The only thing I've seen on BBC America that's worth watching is Whose Line Is It Anyway?

Other Comments by nine9s

14. Comment #20184 by Karalyn on January 31, 2007 at 10:05 pm

I'm surprised by the comment about the Beyond Belief conference... I found Tyson's presentations to be informative, and certainly among the most entertaining. In particular, his arguments about 'bad design' were hilarious. In regard to human anatomy, he said something to the effect of "why would an intelligent designer put a recreational area in the middle of a sewage processing facility?" I'm not doing it justice, it was very funny.

To me, he seems affable guy. I confess that I'm not up on recent literature in astrophysics and am not aware of his research contributions. Tyson is an excellent educator, and has helped to make complex material accessible to the general public through his work with the Hayden Planetarium and NOVA Science Now.

Definitely check your local PBS listings for NOVA and NOVA Science Now, which Tyson hosts. There is also a very interesting (though highly dramatized) new biography of Stephen Hawking, and another program I caught about his scientific contributions through conversations with his supporters and critics... these are on this week, for those who are interested!

www.pbs.org

Other Comments by Karalyn

15. Comment #20186 by MelM on January 31, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Tyson did a very nice "Origins" series for U.S. PBS last year. There's more science and history on PBS--lucky for me I've got 5 PBS stations to pick from on my cable. I would like to see more of Tyson but he's a working scientist. Another guy that would be great is Steve Squyres. He is principal investigator of the Mars Exploration Rover Mission and was a student of Carl Sagan. I don't know if he's interested in popularization but I hope he considers it. We sure need some scientists to inspire the kids and do battle with the anti-evolution and YEC freaks in this country. If we don't turn this around, who knows, the geocentric guys--yes they exist (I have links)--might get the upper hand. And, let's face it, a Bible based astrophysics would be a very strange beast indeed.

Tyson bio: http://space.about.com/od/astronomerbiographies/a/ndgysonbio.htm?terms=phd+graduation

Squyres bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Squyres

Other Comments by MelM

16. Comment #20202 by Tom Day on February 1, 2007 at 2:47 am

Ealier comment from Yorker: '...he hasn't made any significant contributions yet.'

Not personally familiar with deGrasse Tyson's academic contributions to his field of study, but let's not underestimate the (different type of) contribution that scientists like him can make if they have a facility for communicating their subject to the general public in an accessible and inspiring way. They raise the public consciousness on scientific issues, help to counter the drivel propagated by religion and (hopefully) inspire young people to take up scientific careers.

Other Comments by Tom Day

17. Comment #20219 by Yorker on February 1, 2007 at 5:48 am

If Neil de Grasse Tyson has aspirations to follow in Sagan's footsteps, then I wish him success, Richard Dawkins has also said he wouldn't mind donning that mantle; we definitely need more scientists willing to explain the work and most importantly, the method of science to the public. I agree with Tom Day that it's possible for a scientist to make contributions of a different kind (as Neil does) but its all the more powerful coming from a scientist of stature, Neil must be careful to get the balance right – as Sagan did – I don't think he quite has it yet.

Even then, he will be criticised by his peers (as Sagan was) for using science as a way to make to make money instead of doing real, valuable research. In Sagan's case it was unjustified because Carl did do some worthwhile real science, so far, I know of none by Neil so he will probably come under heavier fire.

Having taken the time to research him further, I could take some minor issue with more of what Neil says; a lengthy essay could be written on the subject of the popularisation of science but this is not the place for it so I'll leave it here.

Other Comments by Yorker

18. Comment #20350 by John Phillips on February 2, 2007 at 12:28 am

Yorker: So he will be criticised, as Dawkins has been, so what, after all scientists are only human and have the same weaknesses as the rest, envy etc.. What matters is whether what he does is of value in raising the consciousness of the general public to science and its true value to us. By your criteria, even Einstein would probably be found wanting, as there were those in the community who levelled criticism at him for his perceived public persona when he was feted by the media of his time, either that or you are naturally a pessimist. Personally I don't care if the person raising the publics awareness of science has little or no actual research behind them as long as they can present the subject in an accurate and entertaining manner. After all, their target audience is not other scientists but the general public, few of who have a real understanding of science or the scientific method.

Other Comments by John Phillips

19. Comment #20374 by a-teapot-ist on February 2, 2007 at 4:24 am

"Aw, ****, I didn't carry the two!" lmao So not only is Stewart something of a history buff, he's got some interest in astronomy and physics. Multi-faceted, this liberal fashion plate, eh what?

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist