Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Religion

Do we know for a fact that Dr. Tyson is not an atheist? The citations linked in the article demonstrate clearly that he believes God has no place in the realm of scientific inquiry, though he's never said anything about the role of God in any other context (to my knowledge). Based on what he's written and said, I'd speculate that he is something like a scientific pantheist (because of the way he uses "spiritual" language when talking about the cosmos), though he could very well be a private atheist or Christian. --Perspicuus 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

His statements here seem incompatible with the view that he's anything but an atheist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

I think the text in the article is in error when it states he's neither religious nor an atheist. If the article is to state that he's not an atheist, there should be some citation in which he states that he is not an atheist. That he is not religious is patently obvious from his talk (available on YouTube in links from the above YouTube page) at the Beyond Belief conference, and from the two essays on his web site cited in the Wikipedia article:

http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/18magazines_perimeter.php http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/18magazines_holywars.php

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is not religious, and has argued that religion poses a threat to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Circumspect 08:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to religious views, a person is what they say they are. If someone calls themselves a Christian, I may make assumptions on what that means but ultimately they are a Christian regardless of their belief in any individual tenant of Christianity. Tyson has asserted (on this article itself), that he is an agnostic, see http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/08/24/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-religion/ looseBits (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He has also stated that he would prefer to call himself nothing but a scientist, with "agnostic" being a label he takes only grudgingly. I think an article about the status of his personal beliefs should include this information, and leave out any speculation as to other philosophies he may or may not ascribe to. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlDj_RGOzO8 PD711 02:38, 5 May 2012

He is an agnostic atheist. However, he calls himself an agnostic and rejects the label atheism based off his personal definitions of the two words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.159.119 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read this (third paragraph), he says he's edited this article to change "atheist" to "agnostic". Unless he specifies otherwise, it should stay as that. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms and since he does not believe in any gods he still falls under the atheist label in addition to the agnostic label. He may not agree with it, but he is by definition an agnostic atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.159.119 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, when someone calls himself a theist, he is alost never called an agnostic theist. I know quite a few agnostics who consider the term agno-atheist and other related terms to be completely absurd and slightly offensive, as it (to them at least) is an attempt to pull them into a belief, when they're more about knowledge. In Tyson's case, he does not believe in the existance of a god, nor does he exclude the possibility of its existance (or, in more literal terms, he does not believe that a god doesn't exist). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if someone's posted this already (I'm sure they have), but he states in this article here: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_sept_oct/Tyson.html that he finds it remarkable that the only two essays he wrote on religion have somehow placed him into the atheist community, which he wants no part of. He doesn't like religious arguments and has no intention of arguing with anyone about religion. He clearly mentions intelligent design, not religion itself. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on." ~Neil DeGrasse Tyson 24.19.167.36 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The term Atheist can mean different things. If he doesn't call himself an atheist, we don't get to label him that here in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement, "Showcasing his lack of knowledge of the definition of the two words, and associating atheism with unnecessary baggage.", is opinion on deGrasse and does not belong in this article. EnricCirne (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The man doesn't believe the labels should even be used at all, that they're disingenuous and used to assume all that somebody believes without actually paying attention to what they say. From what I've seen of him he believes that people who believe in god do so due to scientific ignorance and he believes that religions contribute to the undoing of scientific progress and inquiry. This information should be included. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos FuturistSage 14:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever we may think or interpret as editors, we must follow Wikipedia's policies. Within Wikipedia's policy on no original research, WP:SYNTH states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my italics). It goes on to say that, " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research" (again, my emphasis).

We can't take various sources that seem to imply he does not believe in a god or gods, or theism, and apply the term "atheist", if it is not "explicity stated" in any of the sources.

I hope that helps. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyson has specifically refuted atheists' claims that he is an atheist. He has expressly stated that he is an agnostic. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/neil_degrasse_tyson_communicating_science/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos. There are conflicting definitions of atheism, and some are broader than others. Some definitions of agnosticism fall under some definitions of atheism, but not all the definitions are universally agreed and the no amount of Venn diagrams are going to settle the definition. What matters more is 'connotation'; Agnosticism specifically refers to an attitude of open-mindedness where one neither believes nor disbelieves, whereas Atheism has a connotation of disbelief. In this regard, there is a difference in the common usage of the terms and Tyson is perfectly correct in using the word agnosticism to describe his religious views. Therefore the Wiki user(s) who keep editing his Views section to promote the opinion that he still falls under the umbrella of atheism, should cease and desist. 68.197.117.230 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tyson has refuted??? So, if I, as a man, refute the fact that I am a man, but a woman, would you tell others that I do not have a penis, just because I said I don't? Tyson made a mistake. He is, after all, human like the rest of us. Granted, smarter than most of us, but yet still human non the less! So, the Wiki user(s) who keep failing on several logical fallacies are the ones who should cease and desist.Just because dr Tyson doesn't like labels does not mean he does not in fact fall in a certain category. Either you can claim that he is a theist, which I would love to see OR you can claim that it is impossible to determine whether he is a theist. However, if he is not a theist then he is, by the very definition of the prefix a-, an a-theist, a non-theist. The several "definitions" of the word are meaningless because the word a-theist is painfully simple and clear, it means "he who is not a theist", nothing more, nothing less.--88.152.169.97 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't look at the root words or history of a word to determine what a word currently means. The several "definitions" are not meaningless. What some anonymous poster on the internet decides a word means, on the other hand, is quite meaningless. If you have any questions about what the term atheist means, I suggest you try a dictionary. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Meme II

This meme information has been posted again, and yet again, fails to cite a reliable source demonstrating the information is notable. I see no reason this information should be included in an encyclopedic article. Having an image used as a meme is hardly notable. However, I am open to hearing other editors' opinions on the matter.JoelWhy (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed this information per WP:BLPSTYLE. Biographies of living persons need to have higher standards of sourcing and avoid merely trivial information. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 00:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the meme (yet again) for the same reasons as before.JoelWhy (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I never heard aboud this guy and found him when search for the meme and see the origimn. I think many people globally recognize his figure after meme, so its notable, doesnt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.114.30 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is nice that you think that, but where is your reliable source that verifies that? SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a Google Images result where the very first image is that of Tyson in his 'meme pose' a reliable source? How about the 3 million results for 'Watch out, we got a badass over here'? Well-known enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.227.171 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source because search results—especially from global search engines like google, bing, yahoo—change over time. Regardless of how many bazillion hits a meme gets on a search engine, the mere fact of its existance doesn't raise it from triviality. The article is about Dr Tyson, not about the public use of images of him as a meme (or anything else for that matter); the aricle is just about Dr Tyson (yes, I repeated myself).

--Trappist the monk (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On the Rick Astley article, his resurgence of popularity due to RickRolling is specifically mentioned in considerable detail, so why should Dr Tyson's Internet fame be treated any differently? 86.132.227.171 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to go on the Rick Astley page to argue against its inclusion; or not. It's irrelevant to this page. See WP:OSEJoelWhy (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant phrase from Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What a search test can do, and what it can't note: "that Google searches for exact quoted expressions may report vastly more hits than actually exist. For example, a Google search for "the green goldfish", with quotes, currently initially reports "About 14,400 results", yet on paging through the actual number of hits turns out to be 58." Possibly a similar effect for "Watch out, we got a badass over here." SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of pages have sections on popular culture references. I think the problem in this case is that the inclusion of his meme was done in the manner of vandalism. Furthermore, he is not famous because of his meme, regardless of whether that's how many people find out about him. He only has this meme because he was famous already and was participating in the "Big Think" interview, from which the "badass" picture originated. He never even said the words "badass". The meme has absolutely nothing to do with him other than it uses a black and white outlined version of his likeness. 68.197.117.230 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I'm not a common wiki-editor. Here is a link to an interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about his meme - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sp1QyieuMg - Surely this is a good enough resource. It's words from his own mouth! 184.147.227.64 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@skymachine; while google search results may, in a small way, amplify the opularity of a certain word or term, it is unclear whether your statement is a serious suggestion that the Neil deGrasse Tyson "Badass Over Here" Meme is, in fact, an internet obscurity. Not so. In plain language, the statistical probability of so many references to Neil de Grasse Tyson accidentally emerging from such a google search is totally absurd. Any such suggestion has a fatal credibility issue.

And yes, of course, cultural references are transitory by their very definition. But as the man at the centre of this phenomenon is himself on record (as linked) having spoken about this evidently popular reference, and seeing as reports of the meme have featured in mainstream, contemporary publications, it seems as though there is very little argument to substantiate any opposition to a mention

Thirdly, and finally, the issue of precedence is important. You dismiss precedence in the case of the Rick Astley cultural reference by suggesting that one user ought resort to arguing the case for such references on the Rick Astley page.

Aside from the fact that contributions criticising reference to the Astley meme never got beyond one line in an extensive 'talk' entry for the Rick Astley wiki page, you must take into account the wikipedia trend in relation to internet memes. I have searched a number of popular 'internet memes' on wikipedia, and all of those (e.g. the McKayla Moroney e-phenomenon, Jay Maynar (tron guy) phenomenon, and even the John Kerry "Don't tase me" internet meme gets extensive to brief references on each respective biographical page. But all do get a mention. So clearly, the precedence would suggest that popular internet memes are acceptable for insertion into biographical articles, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you to argue against this entry (and therefore, all other such entries simultaneously) to users' satisfaction. Otherwise, I really cannot see that you have any credible grounds for opposing such a minor reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V04bf04a (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we know he gave lectures at 15?

Just seems to be a feedback loop of unreferenced sentences regarding this phenomenon in various blogs and profiles. But I have yet to find any resource or university website that claims this has happened. —Aiden 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mixed

His mother is white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.81.68 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source?82.5.196.220 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)