Rightwing backlash against smart, educated people like Dr Tyson

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's what is so damn frustrating about liberal stupidity, well, one of many things; liberals think that smart and educated are one in the same. Of course they aren't. Liberals also think that if someone is educated or smart, then they don't lie, they don't have evil intentions, and they aren't coaxed into lying or corruption by money. But it's easy to understand why liberals are fooled into thinking like this since to be a liberal is to be ignorant.

Crap. What an absolute dumb fuck you are. 50 years an industrial millwright, a full education in the practical and pragmatic. And 110 credits now towards a degree in Geology. And I am a blue collar liberal. Because of the absolute idiocy I see our present "Conservatives" engaging in.

People like you insist that the unsupported opinion of an obese junkie on the radio outweighs the research of scientists with tens of years invested in their discipline. Now that is true stupidity.

Yet you never see the absolute idiocy liberals are engaged in, which entirely destroys your premise that you are smart.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Research publications
Twarog, Bruce A.; Tyson, Neil D. (1985). "uvby Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789". Astronomical Journal 90: 1247. doi:10.1086/113833
Tyson, Neil D.; Scalo, John M. (1988). "Bursting Dwarf Galaxies: Implications for Luminosity Function, Space Density, and Cosmological Mass Density". Astrophysical Journal 329: 618. doi:10.1086/166408
Tyson, Neil D. (1988). "On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest". Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 329: L57. doi:10.1086/185176
Tyson, Neil D.; Rich, Michael (1991). "Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge". Astrophysical Journal 367: 547. doi:10.1086/169651
Tyson, Neil D.; Gal, Roy R. (1993). "An Exposure Guide for Taking Twilight Flatfields with Large Format CCDs". Astronomical Journal 105: 1206. doi:10.1086/116505
Tyson, Neil D.; Richmond, Michael W.; Woodhams, Michael; Ciotti, Luca (1993). "On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century". Astronomy & Astrophysics (Research Notes) 275: 630
Schmidt, B. P. et al. (1994). "The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s". Astronomical Journal 107: 1444
Wells, L. A. et al. (1994). "The Type Ia Supernova 1989B in NGC3627 (M66)". Astronomical Journal 108: 2233. doi:10.1086/117236
Hamuy, M. et al. (1996). "BVRI Light Curves For 29 Type Ia Supernovae". Astronomical Journal 112: 2408. doi:10.1086/118192
Lira, P. et al. (1998). "Optical light curves of the Type IA supernovae SN 1990N and 1991T". Astronomical Journal 116: 1006. doi:10.1086/300175
Scoville, N. et al. (2007). "The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview". Astrophysical Journal Supplement 172: 1. doi:10.1086/516585
Scoville, N. et al. (2007). "COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations". Astrophysical Journal Supplement 172: 38. doi:10.1086/516580
Liu, C. T.; Capak, P.; Mobasher, B.; Paglione, T. A. D.; Scoville, N. Z.; Tribiano, S. M.; Tyson, N. D. (2008). "The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field". Astrophysical Journal Letters 672: 198. doi:10.1086/522361
Books

As noted, that's pretty damn pathetic. For comparison here's what a same-aged peer has accomplished in the same time:

Alex Filippenko is the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor in the Physical Sciences. His accomplishments, documented in about 750 research papers, have been recognized by several major prizes, and he is one of the world's most highly cited astronomers.​

To put this into perspective, here are the publications of a random peer, one who earned his Ph.D in 2010:

• The Chandra X-Ray Survey of Planetary Nebulae (CHANPLANS): Probing Binarity, Magnetic Fields, and Wind Collisions
• X-ray Emission from the Binary Central Stars of the Planetary Nebulae HFG 1, DS 1, and LoTr 5
  
• X-ray imaging of planetary nebulae with Wolf-Rayet-type central stars: detection of the hot bubble in NGC 40
  
• Serendipitous Chandra x-ray detection of a hot bubble within the planetary nebula NGC 5315
  
• Chandra detection of extended X-ray emission from the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi
  
• GSC 07396-00759= V4046 Sgr C [D]: A Wide-separation Companion to the Close T Tauri Binary System V4046 Sgr AB
  
• The Astrophysical Journal Letters 740 (1), L17 10 2011
• 2M1155–79 (= T Chamaeleontis B): A Low-mass, Wide-separation Companion to the nearby
  
• Serendipitous XMM-Newton detection of x-ray emission from the bipolar planetary Nebula Hb 5
  
• Light and Color Curves of Six Field RR Lyrae Variable Stars1
  
• Searching for X-ray emission from AGB stars
  
• Kinematic and Morphological Modeling of the Bipolar Nebula Sa 2-237
  
• XMM-Newton Detection of a Transient X-ray Source in the Vicinity of V838 Monocerotis
  
• No Evidence for Extended X-ray Emission around Recurrent Nova T Pyx
  
• Chandra x-ray detection of a shocked polar jet in the symbiotic Mira System Hen 2-104
  
• Serendipitous Detection of X-Ray Emission from the Hot Born-again Central Star of the Planetary Nebula K 1-16
  
• Examining the Radio-Loud/Radio-Quiet dichotomy with new Chandra and VLA observations of 13 UGC galaxies
  
• Molecules in the transition disk orbiting T Chamaeleontis
  
• Chandra X-ray Detection of the Enigmatic Field Star BP Psc
  
• XMM-Newton detection of a delayed X-ray eruption from V838 Monocerotis
  
• The Chandra Planetary Nebula Survey (ChanPlaNS). II. X-ray Emission from Compact Planetary Nebulae

The years 2008-2010 saw the publication of 6 articles. Obama was awarded a Nobel Prize for being a famous black man. Tyson followed the same path. He didn't achieve fame via his work in science.

 

[PredFan]

Here's what is so damn frustrating about liberal stupidity, well, one of many things; liberals think that smart and educated are one in the same. Of course they aren't. Liberals also think that if someone is educated or smart, then they don't lie, they don't have evil intentions, and they aren't coaxed into lying or corruption by money. But it's easy to understand why liberals are fooled into thinking like this since to be a liberal is to be ignorant.

Crap. What an absolute dumb fuck you are. 50 years an industrial millwright, a full education in the practical and pragmatic. And 110 credits now towards a degree in Geology. And I am a blue collar liberal. Because of the absolute idiocy I see our present "Conservatives" engaging in.

People like you insist that the unsupported opinion of an obese junkie on the radio outweighs the research of scientists with tens of years invested in their discipline. Now that is true stupidity.

Thanks for proving my point moron.

 

[mamooth]

Would you like me to point out all the examples of the left wing persecuting intellectuals who depart from the approved speech codes, or would you personal hatred render them all irrelevant?

No need. Just by saying that, you've demonstrated your willingness to present cherrypicking fallacies as something meaningful, making it difficult to take you seriously.

 

[regent]

I don't know if conservatives hate education, but they sure seem to hate educated people. Then again maybe it's only some areas of education that bothers them, I would say historians first and scientists second. Historians because historians disagree with conservative's history, and scientists because scientists seem to be in a constant search to find the truths about things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would you like me to point out all the examples of the left wing persecuting intellectuals who depart from the approved speech codes, or would you personal hatred render them all irrelevant?

No need. Just by saying that, you've demonstrated your willingness to present cherrypicking fallacies as something meaningful, making it difficult to take you seriously.

That was funny.

This entire thread is based on the premise that all opposition to Tyson comes from the right wing. Considering the fact that statistics actually point out that there are plenty of Young Earth Creationists in the Democratic Part, isn't it remotely conceivable that you are the one doing the cherry picking? Or would admitting that you don't have all the answers upset your view of the universe?

 

[JQPublic1]

Research publications
Twarog, Bruce A.; Tyson, Neil D. (1985). "uvby Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789". Astronomical Journal 90: 1247. doi:10.1086/113833
Tyson, Neil D.; Scalo, John M. (1988). "Bursting Dwarf Galaxies: Implications for Luminosity Function, Space Density, and Cosmological Mass Density". Astrophysical Journal 329: 618. doi:10.1086/166408
Tyson, Neil D. (1988). "On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest". Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 329: L57. doi:10.1086/185176
Tyson, Neil D.; Rich, Michael (1991). "Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge". Astrophysical Journal 367: 547. doi:10.1086/169651
Tyson, Neil D.; Gal, Roy R. (1993). "An Exposure Guide for Taking Twilight Flatfields with Large Format CCDs". Astronomical Journal 105: 1206. doi:10.1086/116505
Tyson, Neil D.; Richmond, Michael W.; Woodhams, Michael; Ciotti, Luca (1993). "On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century". Astronomy & Astrophysics (Research Notes) 275: 630
Schmidt, B. P. et al. (1994). "The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s". Astronomical Journal 107: 1444
Wells, L. A. et al. (1994). "The Type Ia Supernova 1989B in NGC3627 (M66)". Astronomical Journal 108: 2233. doi:10.1086/117236
Hamuy, M. et al. (1996). "BVRI Light Curves For 29 Type Ia Supernovae". Astronomical Journal 112: 2408. doi:10.1086/118192
Lira, P. et al. (1998). "Optical light curves of the Type IA supernovae SN 1990N and 1991T". Astronomical Journal 116: 1006. doi:10.1086/300175
Scoville, N. et al. (2007). "The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview". Astrophysical Journal Supplement 172: 1. doi:10.1086/516585
Scoville, N. et al. (2007). "COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations". Astrophysical Journal Supplement 172: 38. doi:10.1086/516580
Liu, C. T.; Capak, P.; Mobasher, B.; Paglione, T. A. D.; Scoville, N. Z.; Tribiano, S. M.; Tyson, N. D. (2008). "The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field". Astrophysical Journal Letters 672: 198. doi:10.1086/522361
Books

As noted, that's pretty damn pathetic. For comparison here's what a same-aged peer has accomplished in the same time:

Alex Filippenko is the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor in the Physical Sciences. His accomplishments, documented in about 750 research papers, have been recognized by several major prizes, and he is one of the world's most highly cited astronomers.​

To put this into perspective, here are the publications of a random peer, one who earned his Ph.D in 2010:

• The Chandra X-Ray Survey of Planetary Nebulae (CHANPLANS): Probing Binarity, Magnetic Fields, and Wind Collisions
• X-ray Emission from the Binary Central Stars of the Planetary Nebulae HFG 1, DS 1, and LoTr 5
  
• X-ray imaging of planetary nebulae with Wolf-Rayet-type central stars: detection of the hot bubble in NGC 40
  
• Serendipitous Chandra x-ray detection of a hot bubble within the planetary nebula NGC 5315
  
• Chandra detection of extended X-ray emission from the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi
  
• GSC 07396-00759= V4046 Sgr C [D]: A Wide-separation Companion to the Close T Tauri Binary System V4046 Sgr AB
  
• The Astrophysical Journal Letters 740 (1), L17 10 2011
• 2M1155–79 (= T Chamaeleontis B): A Low-mass, Wide-separation Companion to the nearby
  
• Serendipitous XMM-Newton detection of x-ray emission from the bipolar planetary Nebula Hb 5
  
• Light and Color Curves of Six Field RR Lyrae Variable Stars1
  
• Searching for X-ray emission from AGB stars
  
• Kinematic and Morphological Modeling of the Bipolar Nebula Sa 2-237
  
• XMM-Newton Detection of a Transient X-ray Source in the Vicinity of V838 Monocerotis
  
• No Evidence for Extended X-ray Emission around Recurrent Nova T Pyx
  
• Chandra x-ray detection of a shocked polar jet in the symbiotic Mira System Hen 2-104
  
• Serendipitous Detection of X-Ray Emission from the Hot Born-again Central Star of the Planetary Nebula K 1-16
  
• Examining the Radio-Loud/Radio-Quiet dichotomy with new Chandra and VLA observations of 13 UGC galaxies
  
• Molecules in the transition disk orbiting T Chamaeleontis
  
• Chandra X-ray Detection of the Enigmatic Field Star BP Psc
  
• XMM-Newton detection of a delayed X-ray eruption from V838 Monocerotis
  
• The Chandra Planetary Nebula Survey (ChanPlaNS). II. X-ray Emission from Compact Planetary Nebulae

The years 2008-2010 saw the publication of 6 articles. Obama was awarded a Nobel Prize for being a famous black man. Tyson followed the same path. He didn't achieve fame via his work in science.

To be honest, it seems that Filippenko spent an inordinate amount of his research on the same topic: X rays. Tyson was more diverse... Perhaps, that quality made a difference to the scientific community... not his blackness or his good looks!

 

[Rikurzhen]

To be honest, it seems that Filippenko spent an inordinate amount of his research on the same topic: X rays. Tyson was more diverse... Perhaps, that quality made a difference to the scientific community... not his blackness or his good looks!

Tyson is mostly irrelevant to the scientific community. His output is pathetic, it's not well cited. Prior to fame, he was obscure in the scientific community.

He's famous in the media community. A clean and articulate black man who earned a doctorate in astrophysics, exactly what liberal elite propagandists want to bust the black male stereotype. Credentials and demeanor are what count, not accomplishments.

Here's Tyson in action. Other panelists are speaking reasonably and he's flying off the handle with his liberal talking points.

He's a smart guy, you have to be do get though a doctorate in physics/astronomy, but in the leagues he's playing in, he's a lightweight.

There's nothing wrong with being smarter than 95% of the population, but at that level you don't earn the accolades of your colleagues nor do you do important research, instead you end up teaching at a community college. Tyson was lucky that he was a black man with a Ph.D in Astronomy for that is a very rare combination.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPhI9GI6QS8]Neil deGrasse Tyson loses it at 'Storytelling of Science' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JQPublic1]

Tyson is mostly irrelevant to the scientific community. His output is pathetic, it's not well cited. Prior to fame, he was obscure in the scientific community.

He's famous in the media community. A clean and articulate black man who earned a doctorate in astrophysics, exactly what liberal elite propagandists want to bust the black male stereotype. Credentials and demeanor are what count, not accomplishments.

Here's Tyson in action. Other panelists are speaking reasonably and he's flying off the handle with his liberal talking points.

He's a smart guy, you have to be do get though a doctorate in physics/astronomy, but in the leagues he's playing in, he's a lightweight.

There's nothing wrong with being smarter than 95% of the population, but at that level you don't earn the accolades of your colleagues nor do you do important research, instead you end up teaching at a community college. Tyson was lucky that he was a black man with a Ph.D in Astronomy for that is a very rare combination.

Dr. Tyson has defied odds that almost make it impossible to succeed.
If part of that success was predicated on his Blackness, so be it. Your opinion has no standing in the scientific community!!!!.I dare say your critique reeks of jealousy. Give this genius the credit he deserves and end this senseless rhetorical vendetta.

 

[Old Rocks]

For the "Conservative", Dr. Tyson has three huge strikes against him. First, he is black. Second, well educated, and, third, and most importantly, he puts science ahead of politics. He has earned the enmity of the "Conservatives" now and forever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the "Conservative", Dr. Tyson has three huge strikes against him. First, he is black. Second, well educated, and, third, and most importantly, he puts science ahead of politics. He has earned the enmity of the "Conservatives" now and forever.

I really wish people would stop blaming the right for all the idiots. If I did that I would have to call you a radical right wing conservative Bible thumper because you are one of the most idiotic people on the board.

 

[Meathead]

Like Obama, no one would have ever heard of this guy if he weren't black.

 

[JQPublic1]

For the "Conservative", Dr. Tyson has three huge strikes against him. First, he is black. Second, well educated, and, third, and most importantly, he puts science ahead of politics. He has earned the enmity of the "Conservatives" now and forever.

I really wish people would stop blaming the right for all the idiots. If I did that I would have to call you a radical right wing conservative Bible thumper because you are one of the most idiotic people on the board.

When you have to resort to name calling all your credibility is lost. Old Rocks is on a higher plane than you can ever attain!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the "Conservative", Dr. Tyson has three huge strikes against him. First, he is black. Second, well educated, and, third, and most importantly, he puts science ahead of politics. He has earned the enmity of the "Conservatives" now and forever.

I really wish people would stop blaming the right for all the idiots. If I did that I would have to call you a radical right wing conservative Bible thumper because you are one of the most idiotic people on the board.

When you have to resort to name calling all your credibility is lost. Old Rocks is on a higher plane than you can ever attain!

Is that so, fuckwad?

FYI, I didn't call Old Rocks any name, I said he is an idiot. There is a difference between pointing out a posters lack of intelligence and calling him a fuckwad.

You are a fuckwad for thinking you could intimidate me into being nice to fuckwads like yourself.

 

[rdean]

It's interesting the people the Right hates the most: teachers, artists, muscians, philosophers, the highly educated, etc. The same people Mao hated and forced to work on farms instead of practicing their professions.

Do the political opinions of actors or musicians gain any stature from their expertise in music or theater?

Misusing authority or trust or station or position in order to advance any political position is not really something that should be admired.

And what's with this cockamamie notion that the Right doesn't like highly educated people? It's not the education which is off-putting, it's the liberal dogma being wrapped in a shiny new package by highly educated liberals that is objectionable. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't disguise the pig.

No, it's the education.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Tyson is mostly irrelevant to the scientific community. His output is pathetic, it's not well cited. Prior to fame, he was obscure in the scientific community.

He's famous in the media community. A clean and articulate black man who earned a doctorate in astrophysics, exactly what liberal elite propagandists want to bust the black male stereotype. Credentials and demeanor are what count, not accomplishments.

Here's Tyson in action. Other panelists are speaking reasonably and he's flying off the handle with his liberal talking points.

He's a smart guy, you have to be do get though a doctorate in physics/astronomy, but in the leagues he's playing in, he's a lightweight.

There's nothing wrong with being smarter than 95% of the population, but at that level you don't earn the accolades of your colleagues nor do you do important research, instead you end up teaching at a community college. Tyson was lucky that he was a black man with a Ph.D in Astronomy for that is a very rare combination.

Dr. Tyson has defied odds that almost make it impossible to succeed.
If part of that success was predicated on his Blackness, so be it. Your opinion has no standing in the scientific community!!!!.I dare say your critique reeks of jealousy. Give this genius the credit he deserves and end this senseless rhetorical vendetta.

Tyson is no genius. He's a token.

 

[mamooth]

This entire thread is based on the premise that all opposition to Tyson comes from the right wing. Considering the fact that statistics actually point out that there are plenty of Young Earth Creationists in the Democratic Part, isn't it remotely conceivable that you are the one doing the cherry picking? Or would admitting that you don't have all the answers upset your view of the universe?

"Democrats = left" fallacy. We're talking apples (right vs. left), you shift to oranges (R vs. D).

Rik relies on that fallacy as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This entire thread is based on the premise that all opposition to Tyson comes from the right wing. Considering the fact that statistics actually point out that there are plenty of Young Earth Creationists in the Democratic Part, isn't it remotely conceivable that you are the one doing the cherry picking? Or would admitting that you don't have all the answers upset your view of the universe?

"Democrats = left" fallacy. We're talking apples (right vs. left), you shift to oranges (R vs. D).

Rik relies on that fallacy as well.

Seriously? Are you attempting to show your moral superiority against a guy that is smarter than your fucking little toe?

Newsflash, asshole, I have posted survey results that show that Democrats actually have a high percentage of Young Earth Creationists in their midst. Since my entire point is that idiots suffuse all points of the political spectrum, your attempt to accuse me of confusing the left, whatever you think that is, and Democrats is so pathetic it doesn't even rise to the point of being pathetic. In case your brain has trouble processing information, being a YEC does not make you right wing.

Me, not being a pretentious asshole, or morally superior to anyone, including fuckwads like you, just love sniping at idiots. If you weren't an idiot, you would join me. As it is, you sided with the idiots and tried to pawn yourself off as something you aren't.

Next time, I suggest you actually read all my posts in the thread before you think you know enough to challenge me.

Feel free to post more stupid nonsense so I can mock you.

 

[JQPublic1]

Tyson is mostly irrelevant to the scientific community. His output is pathetic, it's not well cited. Prior to fame, he was obscure in the scientific community.

He's famous in the media community. A clean and articulate black man who earned a doctorate in astrophysics, exactly what liberal elite propagandists want to bust the black male stereotype. Credentials and demeanor are what count, not accomplishments.

Here's Tyson in action. Other panelists are speaking reasonably and he's flying off the handle with his liberal talking points.

He's a smart guy, you have to be do get though a doctorate in physics/astronomy, but in the leagues he's playing in, he's a lightweight.

There's nothing wrong with being smarter than 95% of the population, but at that level you don't earn the accolades of your colleagues nor do you do important research, instead you end up teaching at a community college. Tyson was lucky that he was a black man with a Ph.D in Astronomy for that is a very rare combination.

Dr. Tyson has defied odds that almost make it impossible to succeed.
If part of that success was predicated on his Blackness, so be it. Your opinion has no standing in the scientific community!!!!.I dare say your critique reeks of jealousy. Give this genius the credit he deserves and end this senseless rhetorical vendetta.

Tyson is no genius. He's a token.

He IS a genius. I don't know his IQ but you can bet its well over the threshold of 125; the minimum IQ requirement for a genius according to the Terman Longitudinal Study. Of course other are other personal traits to consider but Tyson seems to have them all!

 

[BobPlumb]

So, does the left wing backlash against smart, educated people like Dr. Ben Carson?