this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
70 points (100.0% liked)

Videos

15864 readers
226 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Not a fan of Neil, but this is a really respectful way in into teaching someone how scientific studies work.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, I’m still on the fence with what happened after the me-too stuff. Some women spoke out against him, but several independent investigations were not able to substantiate the claims. And after different organizations did their own investigations, they all came to the same conclusions, and let him keep his projects and jobs.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

Same here. I've come to the conclusion that, if I was unwilling to accept anyone that wasn't of the calibre of Carl Sagan to fill his shoes, I was probably going to wait a long time. I think Degrasse Tyson's advocacy for black scientists is admirable, as is his willingness to promote religious reconciliation. These weren't areas of focus for Sagan, but that's ok. They can be different people, even imperfect people, and maybe that's good.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

He’s also just a bit of a prick regardless. There are so many more entertaining science personalities that don’t act pompous as fuck.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

several independent investigations were not able to substantiate the claims.

Tyson was investigated by National Geographic and Fox to protect the shows they were producing starring him. I suppose the Natural History Museum looked into it enough to decide not to fire their star celebrity academic.

So the investigations had massive conflicts of interest actually. And none of them had an interest in his actual guilt. An none of them were victim advocates.

The accusations against Tyson are credible and they've never been properly investigated.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Apparently the museum used outside investigators, and Fox / Nat Geo used internal investigators.

It wouldn’t surprise me to have a media company’s bias being toward protecting their content investment. That person’s face is in every show set to run, rerun, and stream. A museum is kind of different. It’s the in-person exhibits that are the main draw, and a their bigger risk is probably the litigation from substantiated allegations.

I work in this risk / ethics space, and I’m not surprised that the museum was more motivated to look into the claims, as opposed to simply saying they looked into the claims.

And that said, I’m also just some rando on the internet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

does he even have shows any more? why bother if they weren’t going to use him again anyway?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It still comes off a bit douchey. He kept saying that his bluntness of the peer review would be th same as if it was a friend or colleague requesting a peer review. I didn't get the impression that Howard was a friend or a colleague and certainly did not request a peer review. Or even understand the process of a peer review for that matter.

With that said, I do find the video interesting from the perspective of a person that also doesn't know anything about a peer review.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Terrence sent his "paper" to NDT. Idk whether or not he was requesting a peer review but he spouts this stuff publicly constantly, he can't be upset that people are refuting him publicly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying Terrence has any legs to stand on, he doesn't.

I'm just saying it seems a little douchey to get a paper from someone that is in no way a colleague or friend and go to town on that paper. He should have treated it like an amateur that needs encouragement not a colleague that needs the hard truth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He should have treated it like an amateur that needs encouragement not a colleague that needs the hard truth.

There is no way of saying "your fundamental method of understanding the world is faulty" in a way that someone won't describe as "douchey".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So we're in agreement that what he did was douchey.

There's many things he could have done that weren't douchey.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure. Just not while remaining honest and on topic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

There's a wide range of reactions that are not douchey while being both honest and on topic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Cool. Give us one for Terry here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Rather than giving an entire unsolicited peer review, I would just mention there were issues with the paper and offer a full peer review if he’s interested. It’s clear from the paper that Terence has no idea what the process of a peer review is, so maybe start by educating him on that.

Now, if that happened, or if Terrence sent the paper and asked for a full peer review, I would take back my comment. But based on this video, it didn’t feel like that’s what happened.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Talking about it hypothetically is a cop out.

It’s clear from the paper that Terence has no idea what the process of a peer review is, so maybe start by educating him on that.

By assuming he doesn't know what peer review is (something anyone can google) you have guaranteed that someone will find your response douchey. By not giving a peer review you have also been dismissive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Hmm, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about at this point… I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. With only the context of Tyson’s video, I felt it was douchey.

Considering he has a reputation for being douchey in literally the same manner, but towards common people, it seemed like par for the course with him.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

With only the context of Tyson’s video, I felt it was douchey.

Any honest, relevant response to Terrence Howard would be interpreted by someone as douchey.