(10-01-2014 06:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, what exactly is this a smoking gun of? He's not falsifying data or plagiarizing his work, and the other evidence they point to is laughably unimportant (like pointing out that he used apocryphal quotes in a powerpoint lecture? really?).

Actually, that's exactly what he's doing UCF.. he's falsifying data (or in this case a statement) that didn't exist.

Heck, I like listening to NTG, don't agree with his opinions on God... But in this case, he stepped in it big time.

I'm sure he's wrong, but its not that big of a deal. Hell, Hawking was wrong about Black Holes and he is still revered.

(10-02-2014 07:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 06:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, what exactly is this a smoking gun of? He's not falsifying data or plagiarizing his work, and the other evidence they point to is laughably unimportant (like pointing out that he used apocryphal quotes in a powerpoint lecture? really?).

Actually, that's exactly what he's doing UCF.. he's falsifying data (or in this case a statement) that didn't exist.

Heck, I like listening to NTG, don't agree with his opinions on God... But in this case, he stepped in it big time.

I'm sure he's wrong, but its not that big of a deal.

It's a big deal b/c that's his big deal. Without those quotes, he offers nothing as "his" research is pedestrian and niche.

(10-02-2014 07:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 07:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 06:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, what exactly is this a smoking gun of? He's not falsifying data or plagiarizing his work, and the other evidence they point to is laughably unimportant (like pointing out that he used apocryphal quotes in a powerpoint lecture? really?).

Actually, that's exactly what he's doing UCF.. he's falsifying data (or in this case a statement) that didn't exist.

Heck, I like listening to NTG, don't agree with his opinions on God... But in this case, he stepped in it big time.

I'm sure he's wrong, but its not that big of a deal.

It's a big deal b/c that's his big deal. Without those quotes, he offers nothing as "his" research is pedestrian and niche.

I put Tyson in the same category as Sagan, a hype man for science. While Neil has a PhD in Astrophysics, as director of the Hayden Planetarium he's not required to actually do much in his field anymore. All he does at this point is show up a various speaking engagements and gin up public support for more money toward research.

Thus I don't think his mistake is nearly as contemptible as those in the climate science field.

(10-02-2014 08:09 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 07:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 07:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 06:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, what exactly is this a smoking gun of? He's not falsifying data or plagiarizing his work, and the other evidence they point to is laughably unimportant (like pointing out that he used apocryphal quotes in a powerpoint lecture? really?).

Actually, that's exactly what he's doing UCF.. he's falsifying data (or in this case a statement) that didn't exist.

Heck, I like listening to NTG, don't agree with his opinions on God... But in this case, he stepped in it big time.

I'm sure he's wrong, but its not that big of a deal.

It's a big deal b/c that's his big deal. Without those quotes, he offers nothing as "his" research is pedestrian and niche.

I put Tyson in the same category as Sagan, a hype man for science. While Neil has a PhD in Astrophysics, as director of the Hayden Planetarium he's not required to actually do much in his field anymore. All he does at this point is show up a various speaking engagements and gin up public support for more money toward research.
Thus I don't think his mistake is nearly as contemptible as those in the climate science field.

To me that's exactly why his mistake is contemptible. He's lying to get money. That's fraud.