Maybe 20 or so years ago I really liked NDT. My great disappointment for a time was a missed a dinner where he was present and so didn’t get to speak to him in person. That disappointment didn’t last long as he slowly and then quickly turned into a person I don’t much care for.
For a scientist he is rather unscientific. For a know it all he knows surprisingly little.
His calculations are fundamentally flawed. Santa Clause does not have to visit every home on Earth. To begin with Santa only has to visit homes with children.
The stipulations of Santa follow that Santa only needs to visit those who believe in Santa, and those who are on his “nice” list. Older stipulations would have him deliver coal to “bad” children- but this part of the Santa canon has long fallen out of favor and Santa generally does not do this anymore for most kids.
NDT also makes a poor assumption- he qualifies his data as “those who celebrate Christmas.” As stated above, not all people who “celebrate Christmas” fall into the criteria for a visit from Santa, and not all people who believe in Santa celebrate Christmas.
If we view this only as a physics or logistics (math) problem- NDT is already patently wrong as his calculations are based on poor data and assumptions.
Let’s look at this using social and historical sciences though- and illustrate why NDT should stick to his field of expertise.
All knowledge available to a wider society on Santa is oral or written tradition as passed down. Now, an archeologist might tell you that an old legend about a city made of gold or a floating tower is a rare thing and probably not to be taken at face value- BUT- it can be a manner of truth. That is to say that legends and folk tales and word of mouth tradition CAN lead you to actual cities and artifacts and sites of importance.
So maybe a plain isn’t ACTUALLY where 2 literal giants fought so hard that they made the earth split- but it might be the site of a historical battle between two armies led by renowned generals.
So Mr. NDT- why is it when you speak of things like Santa or Religion you take every ancient tale at face value? A first year student of any cultural or historically related study field would know that you can’t just take such tales at complete face value by default, but that also doesn’t mean they hold no truth by default.
I get very disappointed in so called scientists who disregard the basics of science. NDT likes to say what is not possible, here he is merely implying- but that’s not science NDT. What can be reproduced reliably and what cannot be reproduced. The scientific method doesn’t prove things and it doesn’t deal in disproving them even more so.
You cannot use proper science to show what is not or cannot be, only what we can observe to be.
Also- as a scientist- his narrow mindedness is sad. Quite sad.
Quantum physics Neil. Heard of it? Now- yes, QP gets thrown around like magic to make all manner of mguffins and imaginative things, and that does hurt the discipline as a serious science as it has long been treated as pseudo science. That said- there are MANY possibilities here, the least of which being that Santa uses some sort of quantum cloud manipulation or other such means to influence others like parents to act at his behest. Is this likely? Well- no comment. No comment because unlike NDT I am a man of science. I have never devoted serious study to the science of Santa. Few have. So I cannot comment on the veracity with any authority.
Neil has some dodgy math and data with clear implications but nothing else. I would call it irresponsible for any scientist,
Let alone one with his platform and understanding, to make such comments which could be construed easily as having some weight by a public audience, at such a premature phase where he doesn’t even have a hypothesis- just some bad numbers- meaning it doesn’t even work as a “fun fact” from the “science man.” Like many things, Santa is currently beyond the worthwhile scope of science. We do not have a means with which to observe and deduce nor do we have a means to quantify, and as an intelligent entity Santa, from the accounts we have, follows certain rules or practices and routines which we do not know.
I will put this very simply here- science cannot prove anyone exists, not you or me. It also cannot prove we do not exist. DB Cooper is the Alias of a man who stole a large sum of money and supposedly jumped out of the aircraft. There are no records of DB Copper beyond this. DB copper has not been found or identified in the almost 40 years since the event despite a massive hunt and national interest. Many alive today were not alive when DB Cooper pulled their heist. There are a small number of people in the world who claim with any degree of credibility to have seen DB Cooper. Does DB Coper exist? Is he a fairy tale? Evidence suggests he exists- it is an improbable story and not readily reproducible- but there isn’t any serious scientific reason to explore the matter from the perspective of science as to Coopers existence.
If we can’t find Cooper- or any number of people who we have very strong reason to believe existed, often people or places that go unfound for thousands of years or more and into the present day- that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Am I saying that scientifically Santa exists because we can’t prove he doesn’t? No. I am saying that science cannot prove or disprove that Santa exists and NDT’s half hearted and limp approach to some attempt at applying logic or science or math to Santa is disingenuous, irresponsible, and disrespectful. Mr. Neil, please sit down and return to your books.
It seems there's two sorts of people who really hate the guy with a passion: smart-ass know-it-alls who know equally or more than he does and it hasn't made them rich and famous, and people who are butthurt up to their tonsils by at least something that he said - and he's saying a LOT. I don't like his general attitude and smugness either, but he does a good job doing what he's paid for: making science more accessible and causing a fuzz, ehm, social media reactions resulting in clicks and replies.
Guy's not a scientist practicing science, he's a TV personality. He's at least partly paid for getting people pissed at him, and as opposed to so many TV heads publicly mimicking doctors and scientists, he's not running any scams, and for the most parts, he's standing on the right side of things.
Upvote. I disagree on a few points here and agree on others, but I respect your take. I do like that he does make science more accessible or attractive, but I think that not just because he is a public persona associated with science, but he actually has credentials AND flaunts them in debate and such, that there is abuse of position. People are allowed their opinions, but I do see a couple divides. The first is that when someone like a celebrity actor with a huge following makes some foolish brain fart, people may be influenced, but at the end of the day saying “trust my opinion on the water rights issues, I am screen union certified as a dramatic lead!” Doesn’t hold the weight of seeming authority as a specialized scientific title. The second divide is- much as was a huge topic in the former presidential administration- the public will place trust in certain positions even if they don’t understand the limitations of those people. If a president or acclaimed psychologist says:
“As a professional, XYZ group of people are just inferior and don’t deserve or cannot handle having human rights..” that holds a different sway than some rando and slightly different sway than prefacing it as a personal opinion.
In that context being a person known as a “face” for popular science and making it accessible becomes slightly less laudable- as “accessible science” is perhaps another word for “digestible science,” science that can easily be understood and accepted by people who do not have the time or capacity to understand nuance or depth in the subject. I personally think Mr. Tyson was great- when he kept more to his lane and closer to his expertise and presented science for the wonders and feats it gives us vs. using science as a prop for his opinions and ideas on society.
For a scientist he is rather unscientific. For a know it all he knows surprisingly little.
His calculations are fundamentally flawed. Santa Clause does not have to visit every home on Earth. To begin with Santa only has to visit homes with children.
The stipulations of Santa follow that Santa only needs to visit those who believe in Santa, and those who are on his “nice” list. Older stipulations would have him deliver coal to “bad” children- but this part of the Santa canon has long fallen out of favor and Santa generally does not do this anymore for most kids.
If we view this only as a physics or logistics (math) problem- NDT is already patently wrong as his calculations are based on poor data and assumptions.
Let’s look at this using social and historical sciences though- and illustrate why NDT should stick to his field of expertise.
All knowledge available to a wider society on Santa is oral or written tradition as passed down. Now, an archeologist might tell you that an old legend about a city made of gold or a floating tower is a rare thing and probably not to be taken at face value- BUT- it can be a manner of truth. That is to say that legends and folk tales and word of mouth tradition CAN lead you to actual cities and artifacts and sites of importance.
So Mr. NDT- why is it when you speak of things like Santa or Religion you take every ancient tale at face value? A first year student of any cultural or historically related study field would know that you can’t just take such tales at complete face value by default, but that also doesn’t mean they hold no truth by default.
I get very disappointed in so called scientists who disregard the basics of science. NDT likes to say what is not possible, here he is merely implying- but that’s not science NDT. What can be reproduced reliably and what cannot be reproduced. The scientific method doesn’t prove things and it doesn’t deal in disproving them even more so.
Also- as a scientist- his narrow mindedness is sad. Quite sad.
Quantum physics Neil. Heard of it? Now- yes, QP gets thrown around like magic to make all manner of mguffins and imaginative things, and that does hurt the discipline as a serious science as it has long been treated as pseudo science. That said- there are MANY possibilities here, the least of which being that Santa uses some sort of quantum cloud manipulation or other such means to influence others like parents to act at his behest. Is this likely? Well- no comment. No comment because unlike NDT I am a man of science. I have never devoted serious study to the science of Santa. Few have. So I cannot comment on the veracity with any authority.
Neil has some dodgy math and data with clear implications but nothing else. I would call it irresponsible for any scientist,
Guy's not a scientist practicing science, he's a TV personality. He's at least partly paid for getting people pissed at him, and as opposed to so many TV heads publicly mimicking doctors and scientists, he's not running any scams, and for the most parts, he's standing on the right side of things.
In that context being a person known as a “face” for popular science and making it accessible becomes slightly less laudable- as “accessible science” is perhaps another word for “digestible science,” science that can easily be understood and accepted by people who do not have the time or capacity to understand nuance or depth in the subject. I personally think Mr. Tyson was great- when he kept more to his lane and closer to his expertise and presented science for the wonders and feats it gives us vs. using science as a prop for his opinions and ideas on society.